NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats still a bullshit conclusion according to the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association. Since they are scientists and do that kind of thing for a living I tend to trust their conclusions that sexuality can not and should not be changed. You on the other hand are a teenager on the internet trying to explain your (flawed) reasoning behind changing sexuality. Therefore you are still spouting bullshit conclusions.


-APA (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html)
Ah, but you see, that is the problem. I'm not referring to someone who is pressured by society or such. What I'm saying is that a person can over time change their sexuality if they are willing. If they mentally feel they would prefer being another sexuality, not because of societal pressures. Remember, I never said it was easy. One must fully feel one wants to be of a different sexuality, and have to work at it for a very, very long time.

Ah, but you see, that is the problem. I'm not referring to someone who is pressured by society or such. What I'm saying is that a person can over time change their sexuality if they are willing. If they mentally feel they would prefer being another sexuality, not because of societal pressures. Remember, I never said it was easy. One must fully feel one wants to be of a different sexuality, and have to work at it for a very, very long time.

Possibly. Personally, I doubt it. But let's say for argument's sake that you're right that given enough time, effort and force of will, someone was able to change one's sexual preference. Why on earth would anyone care that much? It's just sex. I simply can't wrap my mind around the idea that some people are THAT obsessed with sex.

Well, I've managed to almost completely annihilate my sexuality. And thank God, it was worth it. Goddamn hormones, such a putrid piece of...ahem.

No one should even have to reply to this thread. He made himself look like a royal ass before anyone else tried. And wtf is up with people calling it a "disease" or a "disorder?" I don't agree with the way homosexuals think about sex any more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean it's a disease. Maybe heterosexuality is a disease to them? Close-minded bastards! (me being one of them) /chuckle

As are you. I don't see any letters after your name.

Has it ever ocurred to you that the contributors to the APA might have been put under pressure to make sure that all the entries were politically correct?

That they themselves might be biased in favor of a false theory of sexuality?

That a proofreader or editor may have changed what the doctor intended to write for the benefit of the publishing company wanted? Or even that the proofreader or editor may have inserted there own bias into the controversial entries?

In print != true.

I do have letters after my name, so I think I should clear some things up...

First, the APA practically forced the medical community to remove homosexuality from the DSM. The APA has been on the side of all GLBT individuals for quite a while.

Second, proofreaders/editors do not change findings in scientific/scholarly journals. The proofreaders/editors of scholarly journals are peers, and it would be highly unethical to change the writings of a study. I also believe it would probably make the original contributors very angry...

C.M. Pearson, M.A., M.S., LAC, C.L.
Doctoral Student, Clinical Psychology
APA Student Affiliate
ACA Student Affiliate

Weee...I've been away from the forum a day or so and now I have to wade through pages of posts to follow the discussion again... please bear with me.

Actually, I think it's pretty well established that people's inclinations can be changed through conditioning. Of course it usually takes a definite concious decision to do that. Personally, I believe that a lot of what people think of as 'natural inclinations' are just culturally conditioned ones..

Maybe so, though I've never seen any actually proof that someone can change their sexuality just because they want to. God knows there was a time when I wanted to change mine, or hoped I'd 'grow out of it', but it looks like I just am what I am.


I mean, do you think that people have really changed that much since the the times of ancient greece, when bisexuality was normal?

No, I don't. I think that bisexuality is still, and always has been normal, but I suspect what you meant by normal there was the most common thing, in which case, again I think that probably the majority of people are bisexual.


Personally, I think that people who insist that homosexuality is innate do so because subconciously they think there's something wrong with it that has to be justified.

Maybe some do, but that's too big a generalisation. Personally, I think it's innate because that theory fits in with my personal experience.

Well, that establishes that homosexuality occurs in nature, which isn't really a surprise. That doesn't establish in any way whatsoever that one's sexuality is immutable.

I did a little looking around since you didn't provide sources, and found this (http://www.sensualism.com/gay/). Anyway, if these are the gay penguins you're talking about, then the fact that they were raised in captivity and relative isolation seems like an argument in favor of sexuality being changeable. Since the penguins spent all their time together, they were each others most natural choice of mates. We have no way of knowing what their 'innate' sexual preference may have been, but they chose homosexuality when no other option was available.

Of course, there are probably gay penguins in the wild, but that doesn't mean it's neccesarily innate either - different penguins will have experienced slightly diffferent childhoods etc.

Having said all this, I believe that there probably is an innate component to sexuality, but I think people way overemphasize it. I think choice is a much bigger factor than a lot of people seem to think.

What about Bonobo chimps then? They display lesbian behaviour in the wild.

I read a while back that giraffes and black swans have been documented to have homosexual pairings in the wild too. Sorry, don't have a link atm (it was seriously a couple of years ago when I read about that stuff) but maybe a google search will come up with something if I can be bothered.

Ah, but you see, that is the problem. I'm not referring to someone who is pressured by society or such. What I'm saying is that a person can over time change their sexuality if they are willing. If they mentally feel they would prefer being another sexuality, not because of societal pressures. Remember, I never said it was easy. One must fully feel one wants to be of a different sexuality, and have to work at it for a very, very long time.
And what the APA is saying is that you are wrong. Despite whatever you did, you did not change your sexuality. The mere fact that you admit to having sexual urges in proof of this. About a dozen people have said this already, and you still refuse to listen.

I disagree with this statement. I am sure you are referring to a few articles which suggest enlarged ventricles to be correlated with homosexuality. There are just as many studies which refute this, so in the end we still don’t know. Also, if this were true, no amount of cognitive restructuring/eating healthy foods/etc. would ever change the amount of CSF in a ventricle and thus change our sexuality.

Hmm...I'd have to check up on this, but I'm pretty sure that ventricles are not parts of the brain, but rather parts of the heart.

Possibly. Personally, I doubt it. But let's say for argument's sake that you're right that given enough time, effort and force of will, someone was able to change one's sexual preference. Why on earth would anyone care that much? It's just sex. I simply can't wrap my mind around the idea that some people are THAT obsessed with sex.

I can definately see why someone might want to change their sexuality. Imagine if you were gay and your family were homophobic- wouldn't your life be easier and happier if you were straight? Might you not then want to change your sexuality?

Personally, for a couple of years I wanted to change mine. I wanted to want what I was told to want (weird sentence I know, but it makes sense if you think about it). I wanted to be what I'd been told was 'normal'. It took a long time to come to terms with.

Edit- I still don't think it's *possible* to change your sexuality, I just wanted to point out that I think it's understandable to want to, and doesn't make you 'obsessed with sex'.

The person who started this thread totally doesn't know what he's talking about.

First of all, you have admitted that you are not yet 18. That means you're only a teenager, and you think you have understood all of what sexuality is about? You're trying to refute established science with your own perception of reality. Well, I'm an iconoclast too, but I try to check the facts before making broad assumptions about all of humankind.

You're not asexual. You have biological urges, and those are not just "putrid" hormones acting up; and it's not just teenagers who get those urges.

Look at my blog entry on relationships (http://stillwatersca.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-do-i-think-about-relationships.html). I find physical contact between human beings disgusting as well. But I don't call myself asexual. You are not asexual; you are a prude with a fundamentally flawed (i.e. wrong) understanding of sexuality trying to impose your perception on everyone.

Hmm...I'd have to check up on this, but I'm pretty sure that ventricles are not parts of the brain, but rather parts of the heart.


Actually, there are ventricles in the brain too--four of them. They are filled with the CSF. However, I think the article y'all are referring to found that gay men had larger hypothalami, not ventricles.

Actually, there are ventricles in the brain too--four of them. They are filled with the CSF. However, I think the article y'all are referring to found that gay men had larger hypothalami, not ventricles.
That sounds right. It's people with schizophrenia that tend to have larger ventricles, from my reading. And I've skimmed some of the journals on the hypothalamus thesis...

Homosexuality is not a choice it is a deficiency in the human body!!!

They don't? Oh really? You do know that it's fairly well established that homosexuality is almost a norm in many same-sex prisons? Desperate men(and women) do desperate things...

Getting anally raped isn't the same thing as being gay. I think you're opinion on sex will change when you hit puberty. You're not asexual, you're just a late bloomer.

Also, you're not killing domestic animals are you?

Homosexuality is not a choice it is a deficiency in the human body!!!
Stupidity is a defiency in the human brain.

Also a simple fact that hetrosexual and homosexual is not just about sex.
It is also a but love, even if it of course some times is just about sex. So even if you have some sucess in controlling your sexualdesires by running 40 k, fix it with your self instead of your desired partner or other methods. It is mutch harder to control your feelings for another person, if you struck with them, and that can happens anytime even if you careful.

Edit- I still don't think it's *possible* to change your sexuality, I just wanted to point out that I think it's understandable to want to, and doesn't make you 'obsessed with sex'.
I've long wanted to think of myself as bisexual. But all my crushes so far have been guys, save for one teacher (which was more sincere admiration). I can even remember the name of my kindergarten crush when I was 4-5 years old - a boy. I get turned on by women's shapes though and can also trace that back to my early childhood. I think I could go another step and love a woman, but that's impossible to test since among all the people I know and like - all geeks or girlfriends of geeks - I know exactly one geeky woman and our sexual preferences clash.

The problem here is the stupid idea that sex, relationships and making babies have to go hand in hand. We all know they don't. Scientists have found now that crushes, romantic love and family love feel different because they aren't only governed by different hormones, but also controlled by different parts of the brain.*

Cheese might think preferences are superficial but I don't. After all, what good would it do if everyone hogged the same kinds of food - we'd eventually starve to death even though there were plenty of things to eat. If everyone would only bonk the same kind of people, we'd inbreed. Sexually preferring one's own gender may be there so we don't overbreed - not that it has helped. (Cultural preferences are only there to make some people feel superior over the rest.) Monogamy and monoamory may also be genetically determined - some species are generally monogamous and others aren't, and everybody isn't comfortable with the idea of dating and having sex with more than one person at the same time but some people feel restrained if they can't do that.

Not caring about sex is also something you can't choose. I wasn't disgusted by the idea of being touched, but it took an outer push to make me develop any sexual needs and if nothing really turns me on, I have urges at most once every third month. My partner alone is very rarely able to turn me on, but other things that are rewarding with our relationship are more important to me.

I however think there is an element of choice to interpersonal attraction. I can't think of any personality traits that are exclusive to one gender, so who you love may really only be a matter of how liberal you are, what is available or the fact that it is more convenient to fall in love with someone you find sexually attractive (which is likely to happen if your personalities don't clash). What one likes in a person can change as one changes over the years, and one can decide which one finds more important - sexual or interpersonal chemistry. But that's it.

Homo, hetero, bi, they all just amount to boxing people into narrowly defined categories. How meaningless. I can easily imagine what a dilemma it would be for someone to be more comfortable building a family with people of one gender but getting hot for people of the other.

*More about the neurological part of attraction here:
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/faculty/fisher.shtml
http://www.cnl.salk.edu/~bartels/
http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/YOUNG/Projects.htm

What I want to know is a much more difficult question...

Is your decision to be sexually active with someone, hetero or gay, based on love or lust?

Is your attraction to anyone based on actual love, or lust?

And can you tell the difference?

These days, I doubt that most people, especially the people here, can tell the difference. Especially the non religious types.

Every time I ask that to anyone in a sexual relationship, they get all huffy, indignant and defensive. You'd think that if you really loved instead of lusted that you would be able to take such hard questions and answer them without a doubt.

People, GW may not be an expert on science, but he knows enough to know that we don't know. If that makes any sense. It's foolish to come to conclusions before having all the facts.

In science, we never know anything for sure. However, like I said, we have just as much evidence for this as we do for many well-accepted parts of biology. This one just makes people feel "icky".

Also a simple fact that hetrosexual and homosexual is not just about sex.
It is also a but love, even if it of course some times is just about sex. So even if you have some sucess in controlling your sexualdesires by running 40 k, fix it with your self instead of your desired partner or other methods. It is mutch harder to control your feelings for another person, if you struck with them, and that can happens anytime even if you careful.
Agreed. And your user name rules. Kälkborgare! :p

Second, proofreaders/editors do not change findings in scientific/scholarly journals. The proofreaders/editors of scholarly journals are peers, and it would be highly unethical to change the writings of a study. I also believe it would probably make the original contributors very angry...

No, they don't change findings, but they can say "Wow, this is full of BS, I'm not printing this" or "This study wasn't carried out properly. Change it or you don't get published."

Sexuality is a choice.



sex is a choice, sexuality is decieded by nature.

In nature animals are attricted to animals of opposite sex due to colors, hormones, scent, actions, cries. ofcourse their are gay animals as well but in the end its a thing of instincts.

normal (survivinng) species will be attracted in such a way to keep there species alive.

therefore the normal human instinct should be to mate with someone of the opposite sex.

homosexuals instincts make them attracted to the same sex. its not their fault it's their body's chemistry.

Certain theories i have heard on homosexuality have been that a rising number of homosexuals are being born due to evolution and surpopulation "stress" factors. one day evolution will make us selfsustaining unics that all look the same and that day sexuality may become a choice but not now.

One person being able to change their sexuality is nowhere near proof that all sexuality is a choice.
On top of the fact that sexual orientation isn't just having sex. I don't have sex, yet I am quite definately a lesbian.
You are right that sexual behaviour is a chocie, but what you've said doesn't have a great deal to do with the orientation itself.

I'll pray for you.

I'll pray for you.

Are you praying that she gets some?

Are you praying that she gets some?

AMEN!

Are you praying that she gets some?

The problem I've seen is that all too often, people who constantly are "praying for others" really need to pray for themselves.

The problem I've seen is that all too often, people who constantly are "praying for others" really need to pray for themselves.

Do you need some too?

Do you need some too?
Probably not. I'm a regular Wednesday night prayer meeting kind of guy at a Pentacostal church.

Stop being obsessed with who needs prayer, and watch out for your own soul.

Probably not. I'm a regular Wednesday night prayer meeting kind of guy at a Pentacostal church.

Stop being obsessed with who needs prayer, and watch out for your own soul.

Yes sir! Right away, sir! Anything you say, sir!
Apparently the Pentacostal church teaches selfishness. Believe it or not, I actually DO pray for people OTHER THAN MYSELF! I recommend it to you!

Yes sir! Right away, sir! Anything you say, sir!
Apparently the Pentacostal church teaches selfishness. Believe it or not, I actually DO pray for people OTHER THAN MYSELF! I recommend it to you!

It's not a good idea to say "I'll pray for you" when the statement is intended to throw stones at someone you consider to be a sinner.

And you can't escape the trap by saying "hate the sin, love the sinner".

No, they don't change findings, but they can say "Wow, this is full of BS, I'm not printing this" or "This study wasn't carried out properly. Change it or you don't get published."

That is true, a necessary requirement so that bogus studies don't get published into mainstream science. Now this doesn't mean that every study is perfect, nor does this mean that great studies don't get excluded. It does however mean that there is no editor out there changing the words of authors... I felt this needed to be cleared up.

Hmm...I'd have to check up on this, but I'm pretty sure that ventricles are not parts of the brain, but rather parts of the heart.

LOL, I'm pretty sure they are part of both!

Check it out :)

That sounds right. It's people with schizophrenia that tend to have larger ventricles, from my reading. And I've skimmed some of the journals on the hypothalamus thesis...

Actually, there are many things which have been blamed for homosexuality. I am referring to an actual enlargement of the left temporal lobe (oddly enough, this part of the brain is associated with language), ventricle, and other associated areas. I believe this study was done in the late 60s. If you would like the actual study, send me a pm or send a message to my nation ksig and I'll find you a link, or some authors so that you can look it up.

As for other areas, the Corpus Callosum, has been blamed for homosexuality, as well as the Hypothalamus. Many of these studies site differences between male and female anatomy, and hypothesize that a homosexual brain will be more consistent with the opposite sex. If you actually read these studies there are many inconsistencies, and many can't be backed up with follow through research. Anyway, the point is that no anatomical reason is known for homosexuality.

Also, if you feel like it... wish me luck tomorrow. I have two finals in cognitive assessment, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

Also, if you feel like it... wish me luck tomorrow. I have two finals in cognitive assessment, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

Good luck and all. We need more educated people to spread the message and stop the kind of ignorance that is propagating in this thread and various parts of the Intarweb.

I didn't start that thread. Ah, and the fact is, we have no idea, as of yet, what controls people's initial desires. We don't know if its environmental, a subconscious choice, genes, etc. But the fact is, with enough will power, you can determine your sexuality. After all, notice how normally straight people who would puke at the sight of gay sex suddenly become gay in prison?

Oh, and I'm not asexual because I "can't get any." I find sex repulsive, love wasteful and pointless, etc.

Seems like to me if you find sex repulsive that your will had nothing to do with your decision. How much "willpower" does it take to overcome what is apparently your natural inclination to be disgusted by sex?

Lesbian porno turns me off. I don't know why, it just does...


You are a guy arent you? :p and if so are you feeling OK? lol actually lesbian Porn affects different people in different ways... so while one person may be turned on by it you may not be... but i also disagree on the point of Homosexuality is a choice... its not a choice is the "Consequences of an action" when you let your sexuality get out of control you start to want to try new things... and you keep getting worse and worse and instead of stopping it you just let it get worse and worse until eventually bam ur a faggot :p but... i also say 90% of gays are born into it and the other 10% are just Sucked into it...

(now mind you none of this is meant to be serious... its just my ramblings i have no proof of anything at all its just an opinion... same as her's was about it "BEING" a choice...)

If homosexuality is a choice, do you really think kids would choose to be shunned by so many, perhaps even friends and family? I doubt it. You did not choose to be attracted to a woman or a man. You just were.

You can force yourself to have sex with someone you aren't attracted to, doesn't mean you're suddenly homo/hetero/bi - sexual, it just means you decided to sleep with someone you were not naturally drawn to. The whole 'whom you have sex with dictates your sexuality' is idiotic logic. I'm not asexual because I masturbate! Christ...

Homosexuality is not a choice it is a deficiency in the human body!!!
Please explain why you think it's a 'deficiency'.

Actually, there are many things which have been blamed for homosexuality. I am referring to an actual enlargement of the left temporal lobe (oddly enough, this part of the brain is associated with language), ventricle, and other associated areas. I believe this study was done in the late 60s. If you would like the actual study, send me a pm or send a message to my nation ksig and I'll find you a link, or some authors so that you can look it up.

As for other areas, the Corpus Callosum, has been blamed for homosexuality, as well as the Hypothalamus. Many of these studies site differences between male and female anatomy, and hypothesize that a homosexual brain will be more consistent with the opposite sex. If you actually read these studies there are many inconsistencies, and many can't be backed up with follow through research. Anyway, the point is that no anatomical reason is known for homosexuality.

Also, if you feel like it... wish me luck tomorrow. I have two finals in cognitive assessment, and cognitive behavioral therapy.

Ah, good luck. Are you a psych student?

If homosexuality is a choice, do you really think kids would choose to be shunned by so many, perhaps even friends and family? I doubt it. You did not choose to be attracted to a woman or a man. You just were.

You can force yourself to have sex with someone you aren't attracted to, doesn't mean you're suddenly homo/hetero/bi - sexual, it just means you decided to sleep with someone you were not naturally drawn to. The whole 'whom you have sex with dictates your sexuality' is idiotic logic. I'm not asexual because I masturbate! Christ...

If doing drugs is a choice, do you really think kids would choose to be shunned by so many, perhaps even friands and family? I doubt it. You did not choose to want to take drugs. You just had to.

You can force yourself to take drugs you don't even like, it doesn't mean you're suddenly a druggy/non-druggy, it just means you decided to try a drug you didn't naturally like. The whole "what kind of drugs you take determines whether I'm a druggy" is idiotic logic. I'm not a druggy because I've experimented with drugs!

I think that bisexuality is still, and always has been normal, but I suspect what you meant by normal there was the most common thing, in which case, again I think that probably the majority of people are bisexual.
So I think that for the most part I agree with you. There probably are people who are strongly hetero/homosexual by nature, but I personablly believe that the majority of people are naturally bisexual. That seemed to be the case in greek times, and I don't believe that genetically we've changed that much.

I believe that if most people today are heterosexual, that's primarily a cultural and not a biological phenomenon.

Heh. Someone accused me of being too polar earlier by not allowing that people can be bisexual so I guess I expressed myself pretty poorly :P.

Anyway, ignoring all that, I think that anyone who believes that a heterosexual couldn't live an equally happy and fulfilled life as a homosexual or vise-versa thinks sex is a lot more important than it is. Many great many have even lived celibate lives!

So in that sense, even someone who had a strong natural inclination one way or the other could choose, and I believe that those people make up a small portion of the population.

That's just what I believe anyway.

For the record, I consider myself heterosexual, but I'm positive I could change that if I wanted to. But then, I'm just one person, so that certainly doesn't constitute proof of anything.

Sexuality is a choice.




I am completely unconvinced of this. I am attracted to women and only women. Men don't interest me sexually and never will. I don't think I could become homosexual even if I wanted to.

If doing drugs is a choice, do you really think kids would choose to be shunned by so many, perhaps even friands and family? I doubt it. You did not choose to want to take drugs. You just had to.

You can force yourself to take drugs you don't even like, it doesn't mean you're suddenly a druggy/non-druggy, it just means you decided to try a drug you didn't naturally like. The whole "what kind of drugs you take determines whether I'm a druggy" is idiotic logic. I'm not a druggy because I've experimented with drugs!

Non sequitor.

Non sequitor.

It wouldn't be if you'd quoted the quote before it in context. ;)

It wouldn't be if you'd quoted the quote before it in context. ;)

Yes, it would. The two are completely unrelated.

It wouldn't be if you'd quoted the quote before it in context. ;)

They are still apples and oranges. You were using a parody as a proof that homosexuality is a choice--but that proves nothing. You did not refute the statements that the person you were responding to made. You tried to distract from the point--likely because you were unable to respond to his arguements taht present evidence of why homosexuality is not a choice.

I agree with the fact that it is a choice. Whatever your sexual preference, you chose to be it. I CHOSE to be bisexual, did I not?

However...it is my common belif we are all bisexual...we have either been, thought of being or watched the same sex in sexual or romantic ways. If not now, then later on in life. But that is my opinion.

I agree with the fact that it is a choice. Whatever your sexual preference, you chose to be it. I CHOSE to be bisexual, did I not?

However...it is my common belif we are all bisexual...we have either been, thought of being or watched the same sex in sexual or romantic ways. If not now, then later on in life. But that is my opinion.


If you want me to believe you chose to be bisexual, you are going to have to share more of how you arrived at that decision. I do not deny that there might not be people who can choose to be one way or another--however, I think that they are by far fewer in number than those who are stuck in their default mode, whether that be gay, straight, bi, or asexual.

I've been saying this for years and it pisses the liberals off. (Which is why I like to say it. :cool: )

I don't think sexuality is a choice, when you feel sexualy drawn to something it's a biological thing and we have no control over our harmones HOWEVER..

bisexuals DO have a choice. As a society that demands simplicity we do not need to be catering to the needs of complicated sexual issues like confusion or expirmentation. So if any angst teenager feels the urge to call themself bisexual they can and should choose a gender, I mean afterall, if they like both it's within thier power isn't it? If anything this gives them versatility, and as a conciounce being I know damn well they prefer one over the other. This not only makes things simple, it shuts up alot of bleak arguments.


But then again what would liberals do if they didn't bitch all the time? Solve a jigsaw puzzle?

Well, I had hoped to not have to become abrasive, that's why a used smileys in my posts, but oh well.

The reason I drew the line between homosexuality and drugs is because they are both dangerous, life-destroying choices, and many people are constantly trying to convince the society around them that they are good choices. Drugs are just the more blatant of the two.

A lot of people on here point out that they should be free to import 2 tons of marijauna, but fortunately sensible people in government decide that a population of braindead individuals is not in the collective interests of our nation.

Likewise homosexuality causes STDs to spread like wildfire and causes massive emotional trauma, as is evidenced by the victim attitude displayed on here by every one of it's proponents. The difference is that our country actually gives people the freedom to practice a measure of homosexuality.
Why do homosexuals whine so much when someone else disagrees with them?

I'm not saying that boths sides aren't very vocal in ther views, but grow up.

I agree with the fact that it is a choice. Whatever your sexual preference, you chose to be it. I CHOSE to be bisexual, did I not?

However...it is my common belif we are all bisexual...we have either been, thought of being or watched the same sex in sexual or romantic ways. If not now, then later on in life. But that is my opinion.

These two statements are comletely incompatible.

The reason I drew the line between homosexuality and drugs is because they are both dangerous, life-destroying choices, and many people are constantly trying to convince the society around them that they are good choices. Drugs are just the more blatant of the two.

(a) There is nothing inherently dangerous or life-destroying in homosexuality.

(b) Tell me exactly when you chose who you would be attracted to? At what point were you equally attracted to males and females and chose to only think one was attractive. How did you enforce that choice?

Likewise homosexuality causes STDs to spread like wildfire

Wrong. Promiscuity spreads STDs, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual actions. Someone can be homosexual and never have sex - thus not spreading any STDs.

and causes massive emotional trauma, as is evidenced by the victim attitude displayed on here by every one of it's proponents.

The emotional trauma is not due to sexuality, but to the way that bigots treat the people in question.

This statement is like saying "Being a kid causes emotional trauma, because some parents are emotionally abusive and beat their kids."

(a) There is nothing inherently dangerous or life-destroying in homosexuality.

Subjective.



(b) Tell me exactly when you chose who you would be attracted to? At what point were you equally attracted to males and females and chose to only think one was attractive. How did you enforce that choice?



Wrong. Promiscuity spreads STDs, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual actions. Someone can be homosexual and never have sex - thus not spreading any STDs.


I have no problem with a non practicing homosexual. I don't think that would be any more sinful than a virgin heterosexual. I can see someone struggling with homosexuality the same way as someone struggling with alcohol. I think that the choice to stay celebit despite homosexual urges is as noble as the choice to stay sober. Perhaps my STD analogy was ill advised.


The emotional trauma is not due to sexuality, but to the way that bigots treat the people in question.

This statement is like saying "Being a kid causes emotional trauma, because some parents are emotionally abusive and beat their kids."

I highly doubt that my philosophical meanderings cause the utter social dysfunctionality I see in the homosexual community around me, with the middle-aged men who threaten to rape me because they're homosexuals who think I'm attractive and I've refused to have sex with them.

Not all kids have this problem, but the vast majority of homosexuals I know do.

Subjective.



I have no problem with a non practicing homosexual. I don't think that would be any more sinful than a virgin heterosexual. I can see someone struggling with homosexuality the same way as someone struggling with alcohol. I think that the choice to stay celebit despite homosexual urges is as noble as the choice to stay sober. Perhaps my STD analogy was ill advised.



I highly doubt that my philosophical meanderings cause the utter social dysfunctionality I see in the homosexual community around me, with the middle-aged men who threaten to rape me because they're homosexuals who think I'm attractive and I've refused to have sex with them.

Not all kids have this problem, but the vast majority of homosexuals I know do.

unnnhkay...:rolleyes:

Gays I have no problems with, what's so emotionaly tramautic and wrong about being born witha faulty harmone balance? Just find other's like you and I wish you luck.

Bisexuals however piss me off cause they're just angst assholes.

Marijuanna should be legalised and distrubeted like ciggerates/alchahol combined. It should be a man's choice if they want to distort thier reality as long as it does not infringe on others via influence under the wheel or in the workplace. (Hell they don't allow ciggerates in the workplace and tabbaco doesn't kill braincells!)

But I do not condone and wish they'd do more about the war on drugs, infact just burn all thier coke feilds up in Indonesia and be done with it. Lazy U.N. bastards just not picking up a match and ending the problem in two seconds, oh why when we can rant and rave for twenty to thirty years..

STAND BACK! THERE'S AN INDEPENDANT COMING THROUGH! :cool: *Hurricane Helms music*

Well, I had hoped to not have to become abrasive, that's why a used smileys in my posts, but oh well.

So smileys can make insulting behavior nice? I'll have to remember that the next time I'm telling someone to f*ck off.


The reason I drew the line between homosexuality and drugs is because they are both dangerous, life-destroying choices, and many people are constantly trying to convince the society around them that they are good choices. Drugs are just the more blatant of the two.

You obvioulsy know nothing about homosexuality. It's dangerous and life-destroying? How? You are gonna have to provide some evidence--which I doubt you can do. Instead you will speak in a few sweeping generalizations or provide some biased viewpoints not backed up by reality or just refuse to respond.


Likewise homosexuality causes STDs to spread like wildfire and causes massive emotional trauma, as is evidenced by the victim attitude displayed on here by every one of it's proponents. The difference is that our country actually gives people the freedom to practice a measure of homosexuality.
Why do homosexuals whine so much when someone else disagrees with them?

Why is it then that most STDs are confined to heterosexuals and almost never affect lesbians? Why is the fastest growing HIV population black females? AIDS struck certain homosexual populations first by bad luck and it grew because of bad sexual habits in those populations. That doesn't mean that all gays are promiscous or that many heterosexuals aren't. You need to get a reality check. It is attitudes like yours that STDs are the prevue of homosexuals that has allowed them to spread unchecked.

And why do gays act like victims? PERHAPS BECAUSE WE ARE. We have been told by our government to sit on the back of the bus, that our relationships aren't worthy of protection, that we are inferior and don't deserve human rights. So yes, we are fighting back and refusing to be victims anymore. I'm sure that upsets people who are used to thinking that are superior, but frankly I don't give much of a crap about it.

And frankly, responding to someone being a bigot isn't whining--its defending yourself. If you went through half of what gays in this country go throw you'd be "whining" too--that or you would've broken because you simply couldn't take it.

Subjective.



I have no problem with a non practicing homosexual. I don't think that would be any more sinful than a virgin heterosexual. I can see someone struggling with homosexuality the same way as someone struggling with alcohol. I think that the choice to stay celebit despite homosexual urges is as noble as the choice to stay sober. Perhaps my STD analogy was ill advised.



I highly doubt that my philosophical meanderings cause the utter social dysfunctionality I see in the homosexual community around me, with the middle-aged men who threaten to rape me because they're homosexuals who think I'm attractive and I've refused to have sex with them.

Not all kids have this problem, but the vast majority of homosexuals I know do.

WEll, you are so obviously superior to me in your thought processes and knowledge of the world as you speak in these grand generalizations and refuse to respond to the points presented you but instead just say they are "subjective" that I am going to take teh thorn out of your side and add you to my ignore list.

Oddly, I'm doing this more and more oftenly--I think I'm getting sick of teenagers regurging what their ministers have told them and not thinking for themselves.

WEll, you are so obviously superior to me in your thought processes and knowledge of the world as you speak in these grand generalizations and refuse to respond to the points presented you but instead just say they are "subjective" that I am going to take teh thorn out of your side and add you to my ignore list.

Oddly, I'm doing this more and more oftenly--I think I'm getting sick of teenagers regurging what their ministers have told them and not thinking for themselves.

Wait 'til ya disagree with them. You know how those 'imavictims' can be. :)

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

Surely, all you have proved, is that you can make yourself celibate?

Surely, all you have proved, is that you can make yourself celibate?

I think all that was proven is an underlying sexual hang-up.

I think all that was proven is an underlying sexual hang-up.

Indeed.... I find it curious that someone would attempt to use their own sexual dysfunction as evidence regarding the nature of another person's sexuality...

Indeed.... I find it curious that someone would attempt to use their own sexual dysfunction as evidence regarding the nature of another person's sexuality...


Actually there's a whole lotta that in this thread. Very indicative of what seems to be a pandemia of assorted psychoses.

Actually there's a whole lotta that in this thread. Very indicative of what seems to be a pandemia of assorted psychoses.

Well - there seems to be plenty of evidence to support the fact that homophobia is repressed homosexual inclination... I gues it should come as no shock that the majority of sexual-phobias are supressions of dysfunction of some kind.

no offense but you ppl who say homosexuality is a disease are just ****ed up in the head im sorry if that offends you but thats the same sort of racist bull**** that led to things like slavery and stuff like taht
those who say its a choice: do you choose what color your favorite color is? no you just like it better. do you choose whether you like women with large breasts better than ones with smaller breasts? no you just like one better than another.

those of you who say its just perception and you control that: we dont live in the ****ing matrix what you see is how it is. one person can see one woman and say "god she is hot" while their friend might say "meh that one at the bar is hotter." its like saying that you can choose to see roses a different color or you can choose to not percieve that a dog is biting you.

being gay is just who someone is. they have nothing to do with it. someone is the way they are. its like saying "god what is ur problem you were born with black/brown/blonde/red hair what the **** is wrong with you why dont u do something about it?" in both cases, the hypothetical situation and the someone being gay one, you can cover it up but not actually change it.

and just fyi im not gay im just anti-racism/any other -ism

I think the key was in the start of this thread... "if you so choose."

Yes it's a choice, but it's also probably genetic. I could choose to be bi or gay, but it would take a lot of energy on my part to do so, since inherently, I'm only attacted to women.

Still, it really doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not.
Que sera sera.

no offense but you ppl who say homosexuality is a disease are just ****ed up in the head im sorry if that offends you but thats the same sort of racist bull**** that led to things like slavery and stuff like taht
those who say its a choice: do you choose what color your favorite color is? no you just like it better. do you choose whether you like women with large breasts better than ones with smaller breasts? no you just like one better than another.

those of you who say its just perception and you control that: we dont live in the ****ing matrix what you see is how it is. one person can see one woman and say "god she is hot" while their friend might say "meh that one at the bar is hotter." its like saying that you can choose to see roses a different color or you can choose to not percieve that a dog is biting you.

being gay is just who someone is. they have nothing to do with it. someone is the way they are. its like saying "god what is ur problem you were born with black/brown/blonde/red hair what the **** is wrong with you why dont u do something about it?" in both cases, the hypothetical situation and the someone being gay one, you can cover it up but not actually change it.

and just fyi im not gay im just anti-racism/any other -ism

QOUTE The Winter Alliance
I highly doubt that my philosophical meanderings cause the utter social dysfunctionality I see in the homosexual community around me, with the middle-aged men who threaten to rape me because they're homosexuals who think I'm attractive and I've refused to have sex with them.

Not all kids have this problem, but the vast majority of homosexuals I know do./Qoute
not all gay ppl are middle aged men(lesbians are gay too) and they dont just go around raping ppl you ****ing idiot you are the kind of biased little ******* that pisses me off

the very fact that there is a thread asking whether or not homosexuality is alright shows that ppl who are gay are being persecuted and yet The Winter Alliance is saying that they are whining for no reason! he is constantly saying that they arent as good as straight people but then he says that they are whining for no reason. he also says that homosexuality causes a lot of emotional trauma!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its the fact that people have to live in the closet for fear of his kind of persecution and that is what can cause trauma. constantly thinking that you arent as important would cause someone trauma think about if a kid somewhere in the range of 10 - 18 read his bullshit and actually believed it thats where the trauma comes in

and sorry to tell you homosexuality is not genetic that is just ppl believing everything the media comes up with try actually thinking for once

Well - there seems to be plenty of evidence to support the fact that homophobia is repressed homosexual inclination... I gues it should come as no shock that the majority of sexual-phobias are supressions of dysfunction of some kind.

Could be true and nothing would put the taboo more out of reach than building around it an electric fence of religious morality, or mysticism for the subjectively inclined. ;) Either way it's all pretty weird.

Homosexuality is accepted by scientists as a biological factor, not a factor of choice. It has to do with much of nature, but some nuture has some effect. Homophobia is not a choice of course, but, like all phobias, it's a mental fear, and unlike homosexuality, it can be cured by a shrink. :rolleyes:


And it seems some people think homosexuals cannot reproduce. That is just bullshit to be frank. All it takes a sperm and an egg (I know I don't need to say that), and most of the homosexuals are capable of producing those (with some unfortunely infertile or have some fertility problemsm just like some hetrosexuals). For instance, if I have an unprotect sex with a woman, surely I will risk getting her pregnant. :rolleyes:

We're all humans, like the hetrosexuals, no matter how you see it or like it.

Armandian Cheese, you need to get laid.

Surely, all you have proved, is that you can make yourself celibate?
Nope. I reject sexuality completely. I don't just refrain from sex. I hate it. It's really just mind over matter.

Subjective.

No, it really isn't.

I have no problem with a non practicing homosexual. I don't think that would be any more sinful than a virgin heterosexual. I can see someone struggling with homosexuality the same way as someone struggling with alcohol. I think that the choice to stay celebit despite homosexual urges is as noble as the choice to stay sober. Perhaps my STD analogy was ill advised.

What you think is sin has little to do with whether it is inherently harmful.

I highly doubt that my philosophical meanderings cause the utter social dysfunctionality I see in the homosexual community around me,

They do when you try to force them upon others.

Besides, what makes you think that the part of the community you see is representative of all homosexuals.

with the middle-aged men who threaten to rape me because they're homosexuals who think I'm attractive and I've refused to have sex with them.

This is no different from a middle-aged man who threatens the same thing at a woman who has refused him. It is a prodcut of an individual being an asshole.

Not all kids have this problem, but the vast majority of homosexuals I know do.

You probably know homosexuals that you don't even know are homosexual.

Nope. I reject sexuality completely. I don't just refrain from sex. I hate it. It's really just mind over matter.

This is incompatible with earlier statements you have already made that you have urges to have sex.

Not all kids have this problem, but the vast majority of homosexuals I know do./Qoute
not all gay ppl are middle aged men(lesbians are gay too) and they dont just go around raping ppl you ****ing idiot you are the kind of biased little ******* that pisses me off


What I find incredibly telling here, is that those who support homosexuality on this thread are willing to insult someone who has been a victim of an aberrant homosexual, as evidenced by my post.

And then I am accused of being a bigot. What a lovely double standard.

Would you like to see the police report? Or perhaps I should show you the gas station where the guy said he would wait for me out back if I didn't change my mind, April 20th 2003?

What I find incredibly telling here, is that those who support homosexuality on this thread are willing to insult someone who has been a victim of an aberrant homosexual, as evidenced by my post.

And then I am accused of being a bigot. What a lovely double standard.

Would you like to see the police report? Or perhaps I should show you the gas station where the guy said he would wait for me out back if I didn't change my mind, April 20th 2003?You were the victim of someone who spoke in a sexually threatening way to the point where you felt the need to make a police report. That's unfortunate.

What's your point though, other than to try to claim the "vast majority" of homosexuals are like this?

In case you haven't picked up on this yet, yes, people would find that to be the attitude of a bigot. That's not a double standard. That's the reality of what you should expect if you're going to paint entire populations with one broad, slanderous paintbrush.

Gays I have no problems with, what's so emotionaly tramautic and wrong about being born witha faulty harmone balance? Just find other's like you and I wish you luck.

Bisexuals however piss me off cause they're just angst assholes.

Wow, what a bigot.

The reason I drew the line between homosexuality and drugs is because they are both dangerous, life-destroying choices, and many people are constantly trying to convince the society around them that they are good choices. Drugs are just the more blatant of the two.
Really, dangerous in terms of drug useage depends on the drug and the amount of consumption. For instance, if I smoke pot recreationally, say a few times a month or year, it's hardly dangerous and it's not life-destroying at all. If I do coccaine every day, several times a day, then it is both dangerous and life-destroying.

However, drug use is a choice. Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual anymore than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual.

Likewise homosexuality causes STDs to spread like wildfire
Then why do lesbians have the lowest rate of transmission for a number of sexually transmitted diseases?

and causes massive emotional trauma, as is evidenced by the victim attitude displayed on here by every one of it's proponents.
This statement is just idiotic.

I'm not saying that boths sides aren't very vocal in ther views, but grow up.
How about you take your own advice.

And as to your harassment or whatever happened (I didnt' see the post, I saw responses) do you want to know how many heterosexual men have harassed me? DO you want to know how many times I've had my ass grabbed when I just went out for a drink? Do you know how many times I've been pestered for dates, drinks, kisses, other things? Do I sit here and vilinize every heterosexual man? Fuck no. Grow the fuck up.

Yes it's a choice, but it's also probably genetic. I could choose to be bi or gay, but it would take a lot of energy on my part to do so, since inherently, I'm only attacted to women.

How exactly do you make yourself attracted to someone? This is new to me...

This is incompatible with earlier statements you have already made that you have urges to have sex. Ah. But it is not. I have physical hetero urges. My body demands sex, at times. However, my mind does not. And my mind, so far, is prevailing. My body's need for sex is lessening and lessening.

Ah. But it is not. I have physical hetero urges. My body demands sex, at times. However, my mind does not. And my mind, so far, is prevailing. My body's need for sex is lessening and lessening.

I hate to break it to you, but this is what happens to *everyone*, regardless of sexuality. You are obviously a heterosexual. The fact that you suppress your attractions and make a choice not to act on them has nothing to do with your actual sexuality.

AC, you have all these urges. They are building and building; you keep them all bottled up. One day, if you do not accept and acknowledge your feelings and desires--and if you do not perhaps act on them--you will "snap" mentally.

Ah. But it is not. I have physical hetero urges. My body demands sex, at times. However, my mind does not. And my mind, so far, is prevailing. My body's need for sex is lessening and lessening.
So you're heterosexual. Good for you... :rolleyes:

You have a sexaulity, I doubt you chose to. You just choose not to act. I'm guessing that you either have a low libido, you're too young, you don't have anyone you want to do it with or you simply don't care at this point in your life.

Sex =! sexuality.

Sexuality is defined by who you are attracted to, in general. While I have some random urges, I am not heterosexual! If random hormonal fluctuations defined our sexuality, most people would be bisexual. I will not "snap", I will not "get laid", and I will not change. I am perfectly happy being asexual.

Sexuality is defined by who you are attracted to, in general. While I have some random urges, I am not heterosexual! If random hormonal fluctuations defined our sexuality, most people would be bisexual. I will not "snap", I will not "get laid", and I will not change. I am perfectly happy being asexual.

Those random urges - those random attractions - and yes, hormones - are what defines your sexuality. If you were truly asexual, you would have no "urges" at all, ever.

Meanwhile, there is quite a bit of evidence that most people *are* bisexual, to a point.

So you're heterosexual. Good for you... :rolleyes:

You have a sexaulity, I doubt you chose to. You just choose not to act. I'm guessing that you either have a low libido, you're too young, you don't have anyone you want to do it with or you simply don't care at this point in your life.

Sex =! sexuality.

I could really care less what someone else's sexuality is, as long as it doesn't involve pedophilia or forcible rape.

Sexuality is defined by who you are attracted to, in general. While I have some random urges, I am not heterosexual! If random hormonal fluctuations defined our sexuality, most people would be bisexual. I will not "snap", I will not "get laid", and I will not change. I am perfectly happy being asexual.
But you're not.

If you were asexual, you wouldn't have any random urges.

So you're heterosexual. Good for you... :rolleyes:

You have a sexaulity, I doubt you chose to. You just choose not to act. I'm guessing that you either have a low libido, you're too young, you don't have anyone you want to do it with or you simply don't care at this point in your life.

Sex =! sexuality.

Actually, he's basically a prude. I am, too, but this fellow's sweeping generalizations give us a bad name.

Glad, though, to see that we have another teen prodigy lecturing grownups about sexuality.

If you want me to believe you chose to be bisexual, you are going to have to share more of how you arrived at that decision. I do not deny that there might not be people who can choose to be one way or another--however, I think that they are by far fewer in number than those who are stuck in their default mode, whether that be gay, straight, bi, or asexual.How I came to the decision is quite simple. I've always been attracted to men but after a while, I found myself being attracted to women as well. I've been with both men and women, thus, making me bi.


And I was reading through this forum and found the fact that someone said thy hate bisexuals because bisexuals are all angst quite amusing. I must somewhat agree. Most bisexuals are a bit too moody for my taste but that does not mean you should hate all of them.

How I came to the decision is quite simple. I've always been attracted to men but after a while, I found myself being attracted to women as well. I've been with both men and women, thus, making me bi.


And I was reading through this forum and found the fact that someone said thy hate bisexuals because bisexuals are all angst quite amusing. I must somewhat agree. Most bisexuals are a bit too moody for my taste but that does not mean you should hate all of them.


So, being attracted to men was your first choice? :)

But you're not.

If you were asexual, you wouldn't have any random urges.
Ah, but I am. Urges are slight hormonal fluctuations. They don't define my overall sexuality.

Ah, but I am. Urges are slight hormonal fluctuations. They don't define my overall sexuality.

Yes, they do. Asexuality is defined by the total lack of hormonal reactions. You are not asexual; stop trying to bastardize the term.

Sexuality is defined by who you are attracted to, in general. While I have some random urges, I am not heterosexual! If random hormonal fluctuations defined our sexuality, most people would be bisexual. I will not "snap", I will not "get laid", and I will not change. I am perfectly happy being asexual.

This is beginning to sound to me more like a stage when I went through when I was 17 because I didn't want to be gay. I tried suppressing my sexuality, decided I was goingt o live my life without physical or even romantic love. I figured I could just be celibate and revel in my nieces and nephews or maybe adopta s a single parent. Then I grew up and came to accept my sexuality and realized that if anyone has a problem with it, its just that--their problem. Damn, I'm glad I came to accept who I am, cause I'm one heck of a formidable person and I wouldn't be that without having first gotten rid of my self-loathing.

"Homosexuality IS a choice...As is Heterosexuality..."

You'll never be able to convince me of this. I simply cannot believe that anyone would choose to subject themselves to the type of abuse and humiliation many homosexuals have to go through, especially when they're young.

How I came to the decision is quite simple. I've always been attracted to men but after a while, I found myself being attracted to women as well. I've been with both men and women, thus, making me bi.


And I was reading through this forum and found the fact that someone said thy hate bisexuals because bisexuals are all angst quite amusing. I must somewhat agree. Most bisexuals are a bit too moody for my taste but that does not mean you should hate all of them.


So you found yourself attracted to women. That's not a choice--that's a realization. A choice is waking up and going "You know what, I think I want to become bisexual today". It requires conscious will, not just realizing something.

And I think that the person saying they hate bisexuals has only been exposed to one type of bisexual--the type that seems to take front and center in public perception. There are probably many other bisexuals taht they have no idea they know. Its like with gay men--everyone likes to think we are all effiminate sluts with gym addictions who decorate our homes in pinks and purples, but in reality there is as broad a spectrum of gays as their is of straight. People dont' realize this because they have this stereotyped notion of how gay people act and assumet hat if you don't act that way, you must not be gay when in reality, they just have no clue that you are.

[QUOTE=Armandian Cheese] For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.
[QUOTE]
excelllent I think more people should take this route and never have sex. 2 REasons 1st stupidity needs to be controlled and this is a good way to do it. 2ndly thats less people my children will have to compete with for resources. See so if more people were to follow your methdology then my future generations are better off. Keep up the good work.

So, being attracted to men was your first choice? :)
naturally. Most people are attracted to the opposite sex at first, are they not?

naturally. Most people are attracted to the opposite sex at first, are they not?
Not gay people. ;)

I can't speak for everyone on the planet, but it wasn't a choice for me. I just woke up one day (figuratively speaking) and found I was a heterosexual. That's just who I am.

Nope. I reject sexuality completely. I don't just refrain from sex. I hate it. It's really just mind over matter.

This makes a lie of other things you have posted.

If you are celibate, you feel urges, perhaps, but you do not act on them.

If you are asexual, you do not feel urges for sex.

You have stated on this thread that you DO feel urges, but supress them.

Thus, you are not asexual - merely celibate.

This makes a lie of other things you have posted.

If you are celibate, you feel urges, perhaps, but you do not act on them.

If you are asexual, you do not feel urges for sex.

You have stated on this thread that you DO feel urges, but supress them.

Thus, you are not asexual - merely celibate.
$10 says he tried to get laid, couldn't, gave up and is now on a rant against those of us who can.

$10 says he tried to get laid, couldn't, gave up and is now on a rant against those of us who can.

No, $10 he tried to ask a lesbian. Now he's upset.

No, $10 he tried to ask a lesbian. Now he's upset.

Yes, how dare she not make the choice to suppress her attractions towards women and magically create attractions towards him!

It's either that or he's 13 and has been severely indoctrinated by school/church/parents to hate and fear sex.

naturally. Most people are attracted to the opposite sex at first, are they not?
Not nessecarily.

Even if your sexuality were a choice (like choosing an ice cream flavor), what difference should that make?

Even if your sexuality were a choice (like choosing an ice cream flavor), what difference should that make?
The idea is, if it is a choice, than it is not natural, and therefore it is immoral. I think... *shrugs*

The idea is, if it is a choice, than it is not natural, and therefore it is immoral. I think... *shrugs*

What is "natural"? Or "immoral"?

What is "natural"? Or "immoral"?
I know, relative terms... I could try to tell these people, but I'd get tired of it pretty fast, doncha think?

I know, relative terms... I could try to tell these people, but I'd get tired of it pretty fast, doncha think?

Even if you classify sex as a sin, and homosexuality as a sin, and adultery as a sin (you can make a long list if you like), there are better things to think about - like how well you're going to treat each other.

Far more important, IMHO, than ranting about someone's supposed sins.

Even if you classify sex as a sin, and homosexuality as a sin, and adultery as a sin (you can make a long list if you like), there are better things to think about - like how well you're going to treat each other.

Far more important, IMHO, than ranting about someone's supposed sins.
You may be right, but people like to have stuff to complain about. Some people live for it.

Ah, good luck. Are you a psych student?

Doctoral student in clinical psych

P.S. I did good on my finals, I'm happy now, because I get two weeks off!
Not like I wont be studying tho...

I've already managed to change myself from straight to asexual. I could make myself gay, but I honestly don't want to, because sexuality as a whole does not interest me. But the fact is, human tastes and beliefs are very malleable things. Being "prison gay" is a fine example. Mind you, I don't want this to turn into another gay vs nongay thread. I'm applying this to heterosexuals as well.

Asexuality is a sexual preference too. You're making the mistake of assuming that everyone is like you. Not everyone prefers asexuality, just as not everyone prefers heterosexuality, or homsexuality.

Okay man. Homosexuality is not a choice. Having sexual relationships with someone of the same gender is. You see, you can't stop a guy who sees a hot chick get a boner. Likewise, you can't stop a guy getting a boner looking at another guy.

Okay man. Homosexuality is not a choice. Having sexual relationships with someone of the same gender is. You see, you can't stop a guy who sees a hot chick get a boner. Likewise, you can't stop a guy getting a boner looking at another guy.

that point was made many times in this thread but i suppose it's not you're fault you're too lazy to read them :p

that point was made many times in this thread but i suppose it's not you're fault you're too lazy to read them :p

You want me to read through 40 pages of information? Try asking the next guy.

ahh...way to many pages to read every post...however, I'm gonna comment (sorry if this sounds like something someone said earlier, I probably missed it)

While the original comment does have some basis of truth (you can choose not to have sex) it is flawed. You can not choose not to have sexual urges, you can just suppress them.

Now, the question about homosexuality. this is a fun one. Society says you are either straight, gay, or bi. This appears to be very concrete and orderly, when it is anything but. I am willing to bet that noone is truly straight or gay in the pure sense. Everyone falls into some grey area. While we may not act on these feelings, most people will be attracted to someone of the same sex on some level at some time.

Look at your friends. What first prompted you to talk to them? Chances are, it was something physical. Maybe they looked friendly. or humorous. or welcoming. or cynical. whatever you look for in a friend, they most likely possessed something. And that attracted you. I'm not saying it is all sexual (little too freudian for me) however, it does have aspects that are similar. And at its root, all attraction is very similar and based in the same part of the brain. Therefore, even the most heterosexual man has been, at some level, attracted to another man.

Now, for further proof, I guide you to our animal bretherin. Every species of animal that performs sexual acts has displayed some level of homosexuality. Now, in many animals, this happens "by accident". But these animals also only have sex to procreate. Lets look at primates and dolphins. Both these groups have sex for pleasure, much like humans. In fact, they are the only other ones that do to my knowlege. And, in both groups, homosexuality has been observed.

Therefore, I assert that homosexuality is a natural occurance. Moreover, we should stop thinking of it as "I'm gay" or "I'm straight" or "I'm bi". We are all somewhere on the scale, and more importantly are all human. Who cares if you prefer men over women? or women over men? Or whatever you choose. The important thing is that you exist. and that you treat others with respect. Who cares if its a choice or not? All humans deserve the right to make their choice and have it respected.

*steps off soap box*

Gays I have no problems with, what's so emotionaly tramautic and wrong about being born witha faulty harmone balance? Just find other's like you and I wish you luck.

Bisexuals however piss me off cause they're just angst assholes.

:rolleyes: Riiight. Because all bisexuals are exactly the same.

Sexuality is a choice.


Doesn't make it wrong either way. ;)

I was unable to access the forum for a few days, so I'm a few pages behind here...please bear with me...

I've been saying this for years and it pisses the liberals off. (Which is why I like to say it. :cool: )

I don't think sexuality is a choice, when you feel sexualy drawn to something it's a biological thing and we have no control over our harmones HOWEVER..

bisexuals DO have a choice. As a society that demands simplicity we do not need to be catering to the needs of complicated sexual issues like confusion or expirmentation.

You're saying that because it's inconvenient to accept other people's differences we don't need to? That doesn't follow at all.


So if any angst teenager feels the urge to call themself bisexual they can and should choose a gender, I mean afterall, if they like both it's within thier power isn't it?

No. You can choose who you have sex with (ie. only guys or only girls) but just because you only have date or have sex with one sex doesn't mean your urges towards members of the other sex will go away.

I am bisexual myself, and I can tell you that being a bisexual teenager is confusing. I believe this is in a large part because people put too much emphasis on polarity- telling you you must be either one thing or the other, when in fact it's possible to be both.

As to the 'angst', if you've internalised all the homophobic bullshit you hear then finding that you are attracted to your own sex can be upsetting and hard to deal with. As a bisexual you can, as you suggested, ignore those urges and only date people of your own sex, but the urges, and any angst resulting from them does not go away.

Your post was basically a variation on the 'why can't you just stay in the closet?' crap people throw at homosexuals.


If anything this gives them versatility, and as a conciounce being I know damn well they prefer one over the other. ?

:rolleyes: How could you 'know' any such thing?

I agree with everything they said. You have a choice to do what you want, thats why they call it free choice. If we were all hetero what fun would that be? Plus, some of the guys that say its bad usually watch lesbian porn anyway.

I say for the most part it is a choice to act upon genetic urges to have sex. Normallly, this is hetrosexual urges, but there are some people who will have homosexual urges.
It is a matter of free will to act upon your genetic desires.
AFAIK, most people watch lesbian porn because they don't want to see some guy's schlong in the way of pussy. Or maybe they don't like the fugly ron jeremy featuring in most hetro porn movies.
Anyway you look at it, people will choose what they enjoy.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.


Well its true you can choose to ignore your sexuality but why pretend your straight when your not? Where is the fun in that. People are supposed to enjoy sex. I couldn't have sex with another women it would completely disgust me(I'm not against gays or anything just not up for it myself), thats not a choice, I don't choose to be attracted to men, I just am.

So I say to Armandian Cheese, quit your homophob nonsense and go get laid!

Have any proof?

As stated earlier. Originally Posted by Armandian Cheese
Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

Theres your proof, humanity does have free will and can choose which impulses to listen to or ignore.

Gravedigging is a choice. So lock this up.

Im in.

what's worse than gravedigging a two and a half year old thread?

Gravediggin a two and a half year old thread with a post like that

I remember seeing the exact same post, word for word, about three years ago. Even the thread title is the same. Is it posted by the same person? Did you get it off the same website? Or is Armandian Cheese just searching back through old topics, looking for posters who already agree with him because he doesn't have the eloquence to express his ideas?

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

I don't care if it is a choice (attraction is something that clearly cannot be controlled), I still unequivocally support the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals everywhere.

I remember seeing the exact same post, word for word, about three years ago. Even the thread title is the same. Is it posted by the same person? Did you get it off the same website? Or is Armandian Cheese just searching back through old topics, looking for posters who already agree with him because he doesn't have the eloquence to express his ideas?
It is the same post. I remember this one too, even though I don't think I participated in it. Check the posting dates...it was gravedug.

A nice topic though...a post on how all sexuality is a choice by an asexual who completely misses the point...remarkable.

It is the same post. I remember this one too, even though I don't think I participated in it. Check the posting dates...it was gravedug.

A nice topic though...a post on how all sexuality is a choice by an asexual who completely misses the point...remarkable.
Mm. I myself am asexual, although that is because of psychological issues on my part rather than a conscious decision.
It's an interesting insight into Armandian Cheese's mind.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

Okay, now we're into semantics. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, none of them are choices. It's the BEHAVIOR that is the choice. A person does not choose to be homosexual but may or may not choose to have homosexual encounters or relationships.

Behavioral scientists will, for the most part agree, that sexuality is a continuum from completely hetero to completely homo on one axis and from "gotta have it several times a day" to "don't care if I ever have it or not" on the other axis. Where the real debate begins is in discussing how much of the whole picture is hard wired into us and how much is a product of other factors. We know, for example, that someone who is bi-polar in the manic phase may be unable to keep from acting out sexually, having multiple partners, unprotected sex, etc. We also know that someone who is clinically depressed may lose all interest in sex. These are both transitory states. When the underlying cause (faulty brain chemistry) is resolved, these people generally go back to more average behavior.

What angers me is that people who believe they know what is right for everyone on the planet insist that the only "moral" homosexual is one who will deny him or herself any expression of their sexuality that does not conform to the right wing, conservative, bible thumping ideal of moral sexual behavior. What angers me even more is that many of these self same pedagogues will happily engage in sexual acts which in other times would have had them tarred and feathered or worse. What hypocrits.

Why can't we agree that what happens between consenting adults is not the business of lawmakers, governments or even busy-body neighbors. I'll agree to let churches teach what they want as long as they don't try to enact laws mandating that everyone believe as they do and adhere to their standards of behavior.

But here's the question, if homosexual desire is a "drive" and "natural" for some part of the population, does that alone automatically make something ok?

If you think about it we can extended this argument far beyond homosexuality alone. Say Zoophilia for example, they want to have sex with animal, that's their natural drive for those people, and they are technically not hurting anyone.

Or take Incest for example, yea if they are both at legal age and they both consent in doing whatever they are doing, does that make it alright?

Or Necrophilia, they like to have sex with a dead corpse. Technically they can't be hurting that person either because the person is already dead.

Or if some people want to masturbate in public places, technically they are not hurting anyone either.

So really, what are the difference? Why accept gay and nothing else? Why the double standards? If we want to take culture out of law making then all those need to be legalize. To claim homosexuality as something differ from any of those other sexual "drives" is just hypocrisy.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

I think there is one big, BIG misunderstanding where terminology is concerned: Sexuality = / = Sex.
Sex is any form of sexual intercourse.
Sexuality is part of a persons psychological profile, and describes in very broad terms who or what that person feels sexualy attrackted to.

You can be homosexual despite living an entirely celibate life. The act of having sex does not determine your sexuality.

But here's the question, if homosexual desire is a "drive" and "natural" for some part of the population, does that alone automatically make something ok?

If you think about it we can extended this argument far beyond homosexuality alone. Say Zoophilia for example, they want to have sex with animal, that's their natural drive for those people, and they are technically not hurting anyone.

Or take Incest for example, yea if they are both at legal age and they both consent in doing whatever they are doing, does that make it alright?

Or Necrophilia, they like to have sex with a dead corpse. Technically they can't be hurting that person either because the person is already dead.

Or if some people want to masturbate in public places, technically they are not hurting anyone either.

So really, what are the difference? Why accept gay and nothing else? Why the double standards? If we want to take culture out of law making then all those need to be legalize. To claim homosexuality as something differ from any of those other sexual "drives" is just hypocrisy.

It doesn't. Nobody in their right minds would ever claim that sexual desires are different in anything but the desired object.

What does differ is the effect it has on society. Personally, I believe that consentual sex, sex between two or more consenting adults, is nothing the state should regulate in any way.
Animals can't give consent.
Corpses can't give consent.
Passers-by didn't consent to being presented with a mastubating person.
I have no problem with adults having sex any way they please as long as it's consentual. I don't mind if they're related or not.

yes people are free to choose their sexual partners and their gendre... not free to choose capitalism though.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

all of which MAY be true. let me be equally blunt: what the flocking hell bussiness is it of anyone not similarly inclined?

=^^=
.../\...

Why do I think its a disease? Its simply illogical to not want to procreate. You may procede to flame me.

In a world with over 6.5 billion people, with 3 billion of them living on under $2/day, and tens of thousands starving or dying of unclean water every day, I fail to see the logic in procreating and contributing to the furtherance of this. Even if you are in a "rich" country, your "super consumer" of a child will contribute disproportionately to over-consumption, and pollution, worstening the problem. Then, there is competition for ever-increasingly scarce resources of food, water, and (cheap) energy, leading to everything to war to terrorism.

It's illogical to put your children, who you will claim to love, into an ever-worsening world in this way, into a crisis-overpopulation by the time these children are elderly.

i'm sorry but is there actually any point in this topic ..... at all?

Not really, but it does keep all these people talking about it off the street and out of trouble. :)

Genuine homosexuality is not a choice, and anyone who thinks that is ignorant. It's not a lifestyle, it's biology.

In a world with over 6.5 billion people, with 3 billion of them living on under $2/day, and tens of thousands starving or dying of unclean water every day, I fail to see the logic in procreating and contributing to the furtherance of this. Even if you are in a "rich" country, your "super consumer" of a child will contribute disproportionately to over-consumption, and pollution, worstening the problem. Then, there is competition for ever-increasingly scarce resources of food, water, and (cheap) energy, leading to everything to war to terrorism.

It's illogical to put your children, who you will claim to love, into an ever-worsening world in this way, into a crisis-overpopulation by the time these children are elderly.

Illogical approach, and one that has an evolutionary purpose. It eliminates your genes.

First off, the world is overpopulated because the wrong people are reproducing. Those who are most irresponsible are having the most children, and it's not only in the Third World.

i really don't care whether it is biology or lifestyle. what i care is that it is being used as an excuse by a dominant self ritiousness to harras an otherwise innocent minority.

=^^=
.../\...

1. No one. Ever. Sex disgusts the hell out of me.
2. I could very well and go out and have "buttsaiks" (well, actually I couldn't, seeing as how I'm under 18) with a man, or for that matter, a woman. I don't want to, seeing as how I like being asexual. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with choosing one sexuality over another---It's just that I want people to realize that they could change it.

It is interesting that you proclaim that sexual attraction is a a choice, yet you are disgusted by sex. I wonder then could you choose to be the opposite, can you not be disgusted by sex?

Try that, and let us know what happens.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/stupidburnbg9.jpg

But here's the question, if homosexual desire is a "drive" and "natural" for some part of the population, does that alone automatically make something ok?

If you think about it we can extended this argument far beyond homosexuality alone. Say Zoophilia for example, they want to have sex with animal, that's their natural drive for those people, and they are technically not hurting anyone.

Or take Incest for example, yea if they are both at legal age and they both consent in doing whatever they are doing, does that make it alright?

Or Necrophilia, they like to have sex with a dead corpse. Technically they can't be hurting that person either because the person is already dead.

Or if some people want to masturbate in public places, technically they are not hurting anyone either.

So really, what are the difference? Why accept gay and nothing else? Why the double standards? If we want to take culture out of law making then all those need to be legalize. To claim homosexuality as something differ from any of those other sexual "drives" is just hypocrisy.

Behold, the only decent argument against homosexuality.

It doesn't. Nobody in their right minds would ever claim that sexual desires are different in anything but the desired object.

What does differ is the effect it has on society. Personally, I believe that consentual sex, sex between two or more consenting adults, is nothing the state should regulate in any way.
Animals can't give consent.
Corpses can't give consent.
Passers-by didn't consent to being presented with a mastubating person.
I have no problem with adults having sex any way they please as long as it's consentual. I don't mind if they're related or not.

Behold, the only decent counter argument to it.

Although the passers-by consent thing is iffy, the passers-by don't give consent to countless things around them. Why is public masturbation any different?

Also I belive both animals and children are capable of consent, they both show clear signs when wanting sex. The effect on society argument seems to have sway here though (for children at least).

EDIT: Also corpses are legally capable of consent right?

This seems pretty troll-y.

Behold, the only decent argument against homosexuality.



Behold, the only decent counter argument to it.

Although the passers-by consent thing is iffy, the passers-by don't give consent to countless things around them. Why is public masturbation any different?

Also I belive both animals and children are capable of consent, they both show clear signs when wanting sex. The effect on society argument seems to have sway here though (for children at least).

EDIT: Also corpses are legally capable of consent right?

About as much as a RealDoll.

This seems pretty troll-y.
It seems pretty necro-trolly, to me. :D

Homosexuality is a choice, much as breathing is. I mean you can force yourself to stop breathing, right...?

This seems pretty necro-trolly.

Zombie trolls: The next great enemy of mankind.

Also I belive both animals and children are capable of consent, they both show clear signs when wanting sex. The effect on society argument seems to have sway here though (for children at least).

Just so everybody is very clear:

No, children and animals cannot give consent, legally speaking. The fact that the person raping a child may insist that the kid was enjoying it does not count as the child "consenting." Let's just be really, really clear about that.


EDIT: Also corpses are legally capable of consent right?
No.

About as much as a RealDoll.

:confused: Some kind of sex doll?

If so, I meant more along the lines of a will. Which would be countered by the illegality of necrophilia, but it's still consent right?

It is not a choice.

I know some homos and when they were a child, they were already different.

One guy didn’t like to play ‘boy’ games, he was more interested in the Barbie puppets of my sister.

As a child, we (at least the boys) didn’t understand him, "wtf, playing with Barbie?"

The only thing I did with Barbie was molesting her. Cutting her hair, gluing some hair between her legs, switching Barbie heads with Ken and making sure that my sister could discover all this very easy… Man, I enjoyed her screaming. :)

As a child you’re not thinking a lot about sexuality, if any.

I don’t know how I do it, but most of the time I just can see if a guy is homosexual or not.

And no not by looking to their clothes or haircut.

For me, I don’t care. Gays and lesbians are just people. As long as they stay away from my butt, it’s ok.

No, children and animals cannot give consent, legally speaking. The fact that the person raping a child may insist that the kid was enjoying it does not count as the child "consenting." Let's just be really, really clear about that.

Yes, the law sees them as incapable of consent, but I was speaking in moral terms. That's the big decider for laws normally, I thought.

An example to illustrate this would be if the child insisted s/he enjoyed it, but the rapist does not believe so and cries at night. This was a real example I was presented with a while back, hence the crying part to emphasis the emotions of the rapist, so people remember s/he's still human.

:confused: Some kind of sex doll?
Yup

If so, I meant more along the lines of a will. Which would be countered by the illegality of necrophilia, but it's still consent right?

That depends how corpses are considered legally. If they're essentially the property of the next of kin, and the will is a special contract about how that property is to be used which isn't voided on the death of one of the parties, then assuming the family let you and the will doesn't forbid it, necrophilia should, in theory, be about as legal as someone letting you use their sex toy.

It is not a choice.

I know some homos and when they were a child, they were already different.

One guy didn’t like to play ‘boy’ games, he was more interested in the Barbie puppets of my sister.

As a child, we (at least the boys) didn’t understand him, "wtf, playing with Barbie?"
Playing with Barbie's is not gay. And I find it odd to that I actually had to point that out to someone who isn't 12. Unless you are 12, which I find unlikely, given how good your English is.

The only thing I did with Barbie was molesting her. Cutting her hair, gluing some hair between her legs, switching Barbie heads with Ken and making sure that my sister could discover all this very easy… Man, I enjoyed her screaming. :)
That's just......you should probably see a psychologist if you enjoy causing people pain.

Sexuality is about hormones. Sexuality is about who turns you on, is not something you can control. Therefor, in my humble opinion, homosexuality is a condition because an homosexual borns with an hormone disfunction. Being that my definition of homosexual is he/she who gets aroused by people of the same sex, plain and simple. People will talk always about "choice" and "platonic love" but it all comes to sexual arousal. Im sure homosexuality in the future will have a cure. Many people nowadays call themselves "gay" probably to call for attention or because they are confused by all this propaganda thrown at schools and on TV but if that person doesnt really get aroused by same sex he/she will never be homosexual but just a confused mind. HomoSexuality IS NOT A CHOICE but a CONDITION.

P.S. - Sry for bad english.

Yes, the law sees them as incapable of consent, but I was speaking in moral terms. That's the big decider for laws normally, I thought.

An example to illustrate this would be if the child insisted s/he enjoyed it, but the rapist does not believe so and cries at night. This was a real example I was presented with a while back, hence the crying part to emphasis the emotions of the rapist, so people remember s/he's still human.
I'm not clear on what your point is.

A child cannot consent to sex. Am I supposed to have sympathy for a child-rapist because they cry at night? Because I don't. Yes, I'm totally aware that the rapist is human. So what? They're a human who raped a child.

I'm not clear on what your point is.

A child cannot consent to sex. Am I supposed to have sympathy for a child-rapist because they cry at night? Because I don't. Yes, I'm totally aware that the rapist is human. So what? They're a human who raped a child.

Sorry, the last part wasn't specific for you. I just using my post to show that not all rapes are so black and white.

My point was that, just because the law says something, doesn't mean it's right. Apply context, and you get morality as the supplier as of this law.

However this is all I'm saying, no developments, conclusions, or anything.

Playing with Barbie's is not gay. And I find it odd to that I actually had to point that out to someone who isn't 12. Unless you are 12, which I find unlikely, given how good your English is.

I'm 38. And I'm Belgian. English is not my mother tongue, it's only my third language.

Sorry to hear, that you as a male, played with Barbie. Was it as good for you, as it was for her?

That guy did more than only playing Barbies. He liked all the girlie games. He was even a member of a baton twirling (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Ma%C5%BCoretki_orkiestry_d%C4%99tej_z_G%C5%82ogowa.JPG) club. He was the only boy...

And he was different. He talked different, his motoric handling was worse (more girly), etc etc etc


That's just......you should probably see a psychologist if you enjoy causing people pain.

Nah, no need for. Barbie is not people, but a doll.

And the screaming of my sister? Well, I was a child. Kids do such things.

She or I do not suffer from any dammage. She's sleeping well 30 years later, believe me. But I still hate Barbie... :)

Sorry, the last part wasn't specific for you. I just using my post to show that not all rapes are so black and white.

Rape is rape. If you have sex with a non-consenting party, you are a rapist. It doesn't matter if you cry about it afterwards. You're still a rapist. If you want to avoid this situation, avoid having sex with non-consenting parties.


My point was that, just because the law says something, doesn't mean it's right. Apply context, and you get morality as the supplier as of this law.

How about applying science, instead?

A minor child is not capable, neurologically speaking, of giving adult consent. A rapist can claim that the child was enjoying being raped, but it doesn't change the reality.

2 dudes is not ok!:upyours: 2 women who are hot is ok:) :D

That's just......you should probably see a psychologist if you enjoy causing people pain.

It seems clear that Ifreann doesnt have any siblings lol. And yes playing with Barbies is gay. Typically, but certianly not always ,males consistently taking on female play roles before sexual maturity are indicators of future sexual preference.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.



You are confusing sexuality with actual sex.

I'm 38. And I'm Belgian. English is not my mother tongue, it's only my third language.
I remember from some other thread that you were Belgian, but didn't know how old you are.

Sorry to hear, that you as a male, played with Barbie. Was it as good for you, as it was for her?
Where did you get this idea from? I just said that playing with Barbies isn't gay. Being sexually attracted to members of your own sex exculsively is gay.

That guy did more than only playing Barbies. He liked all the girlie games. He was even a member of a baton twirling (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Ma%C5%BCoretki_orkiestry_d%C4%99tej_z_G%C5%82ogowa.JPG) club. He was the only boy...

And he was different. He talked different, his motoric handling was worse (more girly), etc etc etc
Being effeminate(girly) and being gay are not the same thing.

I remember from some other thread that you were Belgian, but didn't know how old you are.

Now you know.


Where did you get this idea from? I just said that playing with Barbies isn't gay. Being sexually attracted to members of your own sex exculsively is gay.

Sorry, while I was writing that, I was thinking of Barbie, that damn slut doll.


Being effeminate(girly) and being gay are not the same thing.

Sure, but for the gays I know, they were almost all very girly when they were a child

It seems clear that Ifreann doesnt have any siblings lol. And yes playing with Barbies is gay. Typically, but certianly not always ,males consistently taking on female play roles before sexual maturity are indicators of future sexual preference.

Playing with Barbies is not gay.

Nobody is forcing you to have sex.

Unless you're raped, of course. :p

I would agree that homosexual and heterosexual behavior is a choice. But homo or hetero attraction is not. There is a difference IMHO.

If one is uncertain of one's sexuality, asking "who could I fall in love with?" gives a very definite clue. Having sex with someone, anyone, or yourself (masturbation) is just sex. Your sexuality, however, is defined by your brain (and emotions stemming from thereon) and is something that you can try and deny all you want, but which you cannot in all actuality choose.

How about applying science, instead?

A minor child is not capable, neurologically speaking, of giving adult consent. A rapist can claim that the child was enjoying being raped, but it doesn't change the reality.

Well, science does create alot of laws. However, I think you would struggle to find a neurologist or any such scientist with knowledge of the brain and nervous system, who will make a definate statement about a correlation of age difference and neurology, never mind what parts of the body are responsible for adult consent giving (last I heard, the colon is a large supporter of the decision process). Vague statements aside though (e.g the brain gets larger...).

It's basic elitism in it's purist form, all adults are superior to all children at decision making. Despite common shared experience that some seventeen year olds are far superior at decision making than many adults.

I accept, for beaurocratic reasons, that specific numbers are used, and in order to preserve peace, these laws should be followed. I am not questioning that, merely people's reasoning for following such laws, as I think all children are capable of decent decision making. It's as though they follow it because, it is law, which to me is a disguise for "it's disgusting".

Playing with Barbies is not gay.

Proof?

EDIT: the question mark is shorter than the "f" :(

It seems clear that Ifreann doesnt have any siblings lol.
Little sister actually. I don't recall ever being mean to her because I enjoyed it, but whatever.
And yes playing with Barbies is gay. Typically, but certianly not always ,males consistently taking on female play roles before sexual maturity are indicators of future sexual preference.
How so? I mean, what does what toy you play with as a child have to do with who you're attracted to?
Sure, but for gays I know, they were almost all very girly when they were a child
Unless you know many many thousands of gay people, then this isn't significant.
Proof?

Burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

i'm sorry but is there actually any point in this topic ..... at all?

Hey, if you're seeking a point, you should get away from General forum... :D

1. No one. Ever. Sex disgusts the hell out of me.
-snip-
seeing as how I'm under 18

Nuff said. Wait until you're 30 and only then start making any definite comments, kid, okay? ^_^

Little sister actually. I don't recall ever being mean to her because I enjoyed it, but whatever.

We played nice with each other most of the time. But sometimes we did not. "AAAAAARGH ! Mummy !" :)

How so? I mean, what does what toy you play with as a child have to do with who you're attracted to?

Unless you know many many thousands of gay people, then this isn't significant.


Burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

That's all true. But playing with Barbies as a male is so gay. :)

....you're actually serious aren't you? You don't want sex?! You must have more will-power than anyone else here.

Or some deadly disorder... people who are "naturally asexual" are generally considered a form of sociopath (like psyhocpath, except socially) and, fortunately, they don't tend to pass it on to the next generation. :D

I'm gay and I've always hated Barbies. As Official Gay Spokesperson, I denounce Barbies as decidedly non-gay.

You liked Ken more?

Proof?

I'm gay and I've always hated Barbies. As Official Gay Spokesperson, I denounce Barbies as decidedly non-gay.

I'm gay and I've always hated Barbies. As Official Gay Spokesperson, I denounce Barbies as decidedly non-gay.

I was talking to one of my male gay freinds the other week, asking him what sort of bloke he went for. He started to tell me about muscle bound very short haired men. I stopped him and asked isn't that playing into the hands of sterotype, he laughed and said well he had to really, he doesn't like musicals, Madonna, or Barbara Streisand.

Fair do's then!

Yes, it is illogical to belive in something that cant be proven that exists. But of course we arent all Vulcans (Spock). If we were life would be pretty dull. But the truth of the matter is that humans are illogical creatures.

Vulcans KNOW there is a god/creator/benevolent caretaker, so they don't have to BELIEVE in it. ;)

Oh, and actually Vulcans only HAVE to try and breed during the blood fever, they can make babies at other times too. They just get no choice once every seven years. :D

Burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

I believe that's a positive claim you just made, I would like some proof.

Also, on the grounds that, -1 is a positive negative number i.e 1 x -1 is still -1, so it's postive that it's a negative (apply this rule to negative claims) so I'll label all your claims as positive from now on, and I will require proof of every one of your statements.

To sum up: That's a social rule, not a logic one. Similar to Occum's razor (I think, haven't thought that one through as thoroughly).

I would agree that homosexual and heterosexual behavior is a choice. But homo or hetero attraction is not. There is a difference IMHO.

I agree with you on this point, to further establish my own opinion, I don't feel that Homo. or hetero. is specifically genetic (discounting the reproductive aspect), but rather that the tendencies are based on early childhood life, and experiences. I FEEL that FOR THE MOST PART, the Chrisitanity the frowns on Homo. behaviour takes into account the free-will aspect... for example, in my beliefs pre-marital sex is wrong ,is it wrong that I have the temptation/orientation that would be conducive to (hetero) pre-marital sex? No, but it IS a sin if I choose to indulge therein. Likewise I feel that Homo. behaviour is likewise amoral (this is my opinion, I understand that many of you don't share it, I'm not being preachy, merely explaining how I feel, I am not condemning anyone at all, please respect my beliefs as I respect your yours), the behaviour, not the pre-disposition/temptation, the Bible makes clear (though I won't cite where 'cause I'm lazy, and it's early) that temptation itself is not a sin, similarly neither is homo. tendencies, or since I am unmarried, for me hetero tendencies are not wrong but for me to act on my tendencies is, likewise, one acting on homo. tendencies....

Again, I know most people on here are militant liberals, and please, I'm not trying to fight merely show my opinion, please be respectful.

First of all, sorry to bring back the original post 45 pages into it, but c'mon, man, I'm not gonna read 45 pages of conversation just for this kids post, am I?

No, I'm not. Anyway...

Okay kiddo. First off, we don't need the media to tell us to have sex. We as a species are still on this planet, which means that we must have been procreating before there was media.

Secondly, we do need to have sex. Psychologists define sex drive almost identical to hunger. It's a self-rewarding need, just like eating. Anything that is essential to the survival of the species is a need, and they usually send out some endorphins, too.

Thirdly, the gender you feel the majority of those sexual impulses towards defines your sexuality. Not who you have sex with. Even the Bible assumes that heterosexual men have homosexual impulses. Your sexuality will not change based on the gender of your sexual partner(s).

Fourthly, you cannot train yourself to be asexual. If you could, we wouldn't have any priest/altar boy/rectory scandal, cuz they would have figured it out. Really, just think of it in the same paradigm as hunger.

And lastly, i've been awake all night (posting this at 9 AM my time) and am on two Lortabs and can still think better than you. Really, say something next time that indicates that neuronS PLURAL are firing up in that sexually deprived head on your shoulders. Thanks for chatting, come again.

Alan T.

I agree with you on this point, to further establish my own opinion, I don't feel that Homo. or hetero. is specifically genetic (discounting the reproductive aspect), but rather that the tendencies are based on early childhood life, and experiences. I FEEL that FOR THE MOST PART, the Chrisitanity the frowns on Homo. behaviour takes into account the free-will aspect... for example, in my beliefs pre-marital sex is wrong ,is it wrong that I have the temptation/orientation that would be conducive to (hetero) pre-marital sex? No, but it IS a sin if I choose to indulge therein. Likewise I feel that Homo. behaviour is likewise amoral (this is my opinion, I understand that many of you don't share it, I'm not being preachy, merely explaining how I feel, I am not condemning anyone at all, please respect my beliefs as I respect your yours), the behaviour, not the pre-disposition/temptation, the Bible makes clear (though I won't cite where 'cause I'm lazy, and it's early) that temptation itself is not a sin, similarly neither is homo. tendencies, or since I am unmarried, for me hetero tendencies are not wrong but for me to act on my tendencies is, likewise, one acting on homo. tendencies....

Again, I know most people on here are militant liberals, and please, I'm not trying to fight merely show my opinion, please be respectful.
What you are saying certainly makes sense. It is important to distinguish one's impulses from one's actions. I highly doubt that any all-knowing God would get pissy with humans for having impulses which they choose to control. I mean, it's a GOOD sign when people use their conscious judgment to decide which feelings to act upon and how to act on them, right?

The one problem I can see with your system is that an unmarried heterosexual can get married some day, and can then give in to their impulses without sin. Meanwhile, a homosexual must simply accept that they will never be allowed to be intimate and loving with another human being in that way for as long as they live. That's pretty silly, don't you think? What a weird standard, to say that two people can't be in love or make love just because their reproductive systems are shaped a particular way. What does that accomplish?

What you are saying certainly makes sense. It is important to distinguish one's impulses from one's actions. I highly doubt that any all-knowing God would get pissy with humans for having impulses which they choose to control. I mean, it's a GOOD sign when people use their conscious judgment to decide which feelings to act upon and how to act on them, right?

The one problem I can see with your system is that an unmarried heterosexual can get married some day, and can then give in to their impulses without sin. Meanwhile, a homosexual must simply accept that they will never be allowed to be intimate and loving with another human being in that way for as long as they live. That's pretty silly, don't you think? What a weird standard, to say that two people can't be in love or make love just because their reproductive systems are shaped a particular way. What does that accomplish?

Nothing. But then, what does tradition and the enforcement of millenia-old moral standards ever accomplish? I could speculate that it's an issue of control, but in this case, why would it be?

What you are saying certainly makes sense. It is important to distinguish one's impulses from one's actions. I highly doubt that any all-knowing God would get pissy with humans for having impulses which they choose to control. I mean, it's a GOOD sign when people use their conscious judgment to decide which feelings to act upon and how to act on them, right?

The one problem I can see with your system is that an unmarried heterosexual can get married some day, and can then give in to their impulses without sin. Meanwhile, a homosexual must simply accept that they will never be allowed to be intimate and loving with another human being in that way for as long as they live. That's pretty silly, don't you think? What a weird standard, to say that two people can't be in love or make love just because their reproductive systems are shaped a particular way. What does that accomplish?

Meh. Sodomy is a sin. Always has been and always will be. This is probably the point where a devout Christian would say we can't expect to understand His divine plans, we simply need to have faith and trust in Him.

Why's it a sin? I don't know. Maybe you do. When the Bible talks about sodomy, it's in reference to bisexual behavior. I don't think there were men referenced in the Bible that genuinely loved the men they were having sex with. They were just getting their jollies with their drinking buddies.

Which leaves you all no ex post facto law-ish, what with nothing regarding homosexual LOVE instead of homosexual SEX. Sorry, kid.

What you are saying certainly makes sense. It is important to distinguish one's impulses from one's actions. I highly doubt that any all-knowing God would get pissy with humans for having impulses which they choose to control. I mean, it's a GOOD sign when people use their conscious judgment to decide which feelings to act upon and how to act on them, right?

The one problem I can see with your system is that an unmarried heterosexual can get married some day, and can then give in to their impulses without sin. Meanwhile, a homosexual must simply accept that they will never be allowed to be intimate and loving with another human being in that way for as long as they live. That's pretty silly, don't you think? What a weird standard, to say that two people can't be in love or make love just because their reproductive systems are shaped a particular way. What does that accomplish?

I'd say there is biblical justification for homo-marital relationships, to be honest.

God's first recorded words, way back in Genesis One, are 'go fuck'. He later throws in a vague rule that gives every single living person at that time, the right to live together in sacred, sanctified shagging.

Also - the verse about 'it's better to marry than to burn'? Even if homosex were condemned by the bible (which I'm still not convinced of), it is apparently better to bless it with some kind of union, than to allow passions to build.

The Bible wants gay people to enjoy marriage just as much as straight people. Take that to mean what you will.

The one problem I can see with your system is that an unmarried heterosexual can get married some day, and can then give in to their impulses without sin. Meanwhile, a homosexual must simply accept that they will never be allowed to be intimate and loving with another human being in that way for as long as they live. That's pretty silly, don't you think? What a weird standard, to say that two people can't be in love or make love just because their reproductive systems are shaped a particular way. What does that accomplish?

I understand where your coming from and have considered the issue myself. Although this answer sounds all too much like a cop out, I did see a Dr. Phil show (whom I think is a total quack and should have his license stripped) that this dude was gay, but married, and he had cheated on his wife with guys in the past (like 3 times or something) they had kids, and anyway, prior ot coming on the show, his wife new, he told her all the jazz, anyway, he was talking with dr Phil, and was all 'well, I'm gay, but, I love my wife, and though we had talked about getting a divorce, I love her, and the family, and stuff" and the wife was accepting, and forgiving, she loved him too, and they wanted to just move on with their lives (together), but Dr. Phil was all 'nope, you're gay, so you are a two dimensional character who can't have any emotional depth whatsoever, so you two should get a divorce, oitherwise you are setting yourselves up for faliure' meanwhile both of them are in tears at thinking they have to spend the rest of their lives apart... that is bullcrap *before I go further, everyhting that was 'quoted' was a paraphrase*

Basically the tendency does not forbid romance, although I also feel that should be hetero. I know that seems especially 'close-minded' but its how I feel....

Stop Trolling .... Mr. Troll

Congratulations. You're about 2 years and 46 pages too late.

Edit: HAH Ifreann! Beat you to it.

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.


Stop Trolling .... Mr. Troll

Stop Trolling .... Mr. Troll

He stopped about 2 years ago, you're a bit late.

In reply to the original topic, "Homosexuality IS a choice...As is Heterosexuality...": It doesn't matter to me. In a free society you should be able to do what you wish as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. I certainly don't need to justify my sexual proclivities to anyone.

I understand where your coming from and have considered the issue myself. Although this answer sounds all too much like a cop out, I did see a Dr. Phil show (whom I think is a total quack and should have his license stripped)

I agree x1000 with the bolded bit.


that this dude was gay, but married, and he had cheated on his wife with guys in the past (like 3 times or something) they had kids, and anyway, prior ot coming on the show, his wife new, he told her all the jazz, anyway, he was talking with dr Phil, and was all 'well, I'm gay, but, I love my wife, and though we had talked about getting a divorce, I love her, and the family, and stuff" and the wife was accepting, and forgiving, she loved him too, and they wanted to just move on with their lives (together), but Dr. Phil was all 'nope, you're gay, so you are a two dimensional character who can't have any emotional depth whatsoever, so you two should get a divorce, oitherwise you are setting yourselves up for faliure' meanwhile both of them are in tears at thinking they have to spend the rest of their lives apart... that is bullcrap *before I go further, everyhting that was 'quoted' was a paraphrase*

It's certainly possible for a homosexual person to engage in romantic activities with a person of the opposite sex. But that's not what I was talking about.

Assuming that you are heterosexual, try to imagine what it would feel like if you were told that you could NEVER have a romantic or sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Ever. You could be in a same-sex relationship, and you could have sex with persons of your own sex, but you could never ever do these things with a person of the opposite sex.

Do you think you would be content to live this way, for the rest of your life? Do you think that you would be satisfied to play house with a person of your own sex? Do you think this lifestyle would be as fulfilling as a life in which you are free to choose your own spouse based on your own personal feelings of attraction?


Basically the tendency does not forbid romance, although I also feel that should be hetero. I know that seems especially 'close-minded' but its how I feel....
Don't worry, it only seems close-minded because it is.

You still haven't explained what this accomplishes. Why tell people that they must choose a partner who has a particular type of genitals?

On a different matter, Homosexuality should be condoned and loved!

Generally its the most atractive men, and most Hideous of hideous women who decide to prey on their own kind (so to speak), and thus improving the hunting grounds for the normal, heterosexual persons.

I'd like to see some facts.

Not just the yammerings of a sexually frustrated 12 year old on the internet. Just because you can't get any doesn't mean that they're choosing to be gay.

I've been wanting to use this for so long that I'm just going to shoe-horn it here even though it's not exactly appropriate...

http://www.nataliedee.com/091106/hating-stuff-to-make-yourself-look-interesting-is-not-interesting.jpg

That's all true. But playing with Barbies as a male is so gay. :)
How so?
To sum up: That's a social rule, not a logic one. Similar to Occum's razor (I think, haven't thought that one through as thoroughly).

Prove that it's a social rule. Prove that I made any claim at all. Prove that I exist. Prove that existence is possible.

Or how about we just stick with things as they are, and always have been here(to my knowledge). Burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. Keeps things simpler.

It doesn't. Nobody in their right minds would ever claim that sexual desires are different in anything but the desired object.

What does differ is the effect it has on society. Personally, I believe that consentual sex, sex between two or more consenting adults, is nothing the state should regulate in any way.
Animals can't give consent.
Corpses can't give consent.
Passers-by didn't consent to being presented with a mastubating person.
I have no problem with adults having sex any way they please as long as it's consentual. I don't mind if they're related or not.

But here's the paradox, passers-by might not consent to homosexuality either. Masturbation is a single person activity. So why does passers-by have voice against public masturbation but not public homosexuality?

As far as animal and consent goes. We eat animals, I think having sex with one is the least of the problem when it comes to animal cruelty. Why is brutally slaughtering an animal ok but not a sexual relationship?

Cropses are borderline since a dead person can technically be consider an object (again culturally we believe in the "respect" for dead people, but scientifically we can't argue that a dead person is a person nor does a dead person consider human under the law), hence the person is doing nothing more than masturbation like they do with, say a realdoll or something. And as far as consent goes, does that mean if the person sign a consent before he/she dies it will completely justify necrophilia?

Again I am not really again homosexuality, I am just saying we need to look into it's cultural significance just like the rest of my examples. I just want to point out that if people got problem with homosexuality they are not necessary close minded or stupid because most of us do the same thing.

I've been wanting to use this for so long that I'm just going to shoe-horn it here even though it's not exactly appropriate...

http://www.nataliedee.com/091106/hating-stuff-to-make-yourself-look-interesting-is-not-interesting.jpg
Sweet merciless Cthulhu, that is awesome.

I've been wanting to use this for so long that I'm just going to shoe-horn it here even though it's not exactly appropriate...

http://www.nataliedee.com/091106/hating-stuff-to-make-yourself-look-interesting-is-not-interesting.jpg

You win the thread.

You win the thread.

Finally. I'd like to accept this award with some now immortal words:

Suck it, Jesus!

In my opinion, homosexuality is a disease just like pedophilia. Homosexuals are sick, abnormal abominations and should be vanquished from the face of earth.
Your points are well-argued and solid, and contribute significantly to this discussion.

Homosexuality is not nearly as disgusting as bad suits.

http://www.anntorrence.com/blog/at-images/ie_AT03034.jpg

AUGH

In my opinion, homosexuality is a disease just like pedophilia. Homosexuals are sick, abnormal abominations and should be vanquished from the face of earth.


And from what are you suffering?

Homosexuality or paedophilia?
Or both?

At what time can we vanquish you from the face of the Earth?

Can we pass by Saturday or should we take Sunday?

Asexual eh? Oh wait, you had that thread where you said people should stop fucking. Eh. People will believe wha they want. Ill stick to my opinion that Homosexuality is a disease/mental disorder.

No. For something to be a disease it has to cause suffering in the person who has it. Homophobia is a disease because it causes distress in the individual who has it. Homophobiaphobia could be a disease, except that to qualify as a mental disorder it has to be irrational, and given the fact that the stimulus that evokes homophobiaphobia can in fact be life threatening, it's not that irrational.

I've been wanting to use this for so long that I'm just going to shoe-horn it here even though it's not exactly appropriate...

http://www.nataliedee.com/091106/hating-stuff-to-make-yourself-look-interesting-is-not-interesting.jpg

Until I read the caption I thought it was a personification of homophobia and the kid was running away from giant hallucinatory sperm.

Nothing. But then, what does tradition and the enforcement of millenia-old moral standards ever accomplish? I could speculate that it's an issue of control, but in this case, why would it be?

Well, every society end up creating rules that contribute to the survival of the population in ways that they don't really understand. There are small hunter-gatherer tribes on tropical islands that only allow people to eat meat during special feasts and when people get sick. To them it's a religious thing, but in practice, if the entire population were to eat meat as much as they wanted they would quickly exhaust their supply of game and all starve.

Marriage rules came into fashion as a means of population control in almost all societies, and a way of forming political alliances in patriarchal ones. Pre-marital sex became an enormous sin in all patriarchal societies because a daughter was a great resource for forging alliances with neighbors who want grandkids.

If your daughter is known to have had sex, then any children she has will be of suspect paternity. Why would anyone want their son to marry your daughter when he could pick another bride that would be almost guaranteed to birth only his grandchildren.

Of course, that's all irrelevant these days, and so is a great deal of our out-dated sexual moral code. The only thing that keeps it sticking around is that we don't completely understand it so we're not sure how to go about trimming all the crap out of it. Adding to the confusion is the people who got rich on the old way of doing things, so we've got religious leaders insisting that there way is the only way and if you don't follow it, you're practically a criminal. A bit like record companies really.

Your points are well-argued and solid, and contribute significantly to this discussion.

he got a point though, there's still part of the world where people get marry when they are 12. So culture obviously plays a huge part on what people think is "right" in terms of sexuality.

sexuality is a choice in the same way what family you're born into is a choice. The real debate is whether it is ok to act whatever desires one may have.

No. For something to be a disease it has to cause suffering in the person who has it. Homophobia is a disease because it causes distress in the individual who has it. Homophobiaphobia could be a disease, except that to qualify as a mental disorder it has to be irrational, and given the fact that the stimulus that evokes homophobiaphobia can in fact be life threatening, it's not that irrational.

Calling homophobia a disease is equally stupid.

he got a point though, there's still part of the world where people get marry when they are 12. So culture obviously plays a huge part on what people think is "right" in terms of sexuality.
1) I really don't see how you figure that this was his point.
2) I'm not arguing otherwise anyhow.

In my opinion, homosexuality is a disease just like pedophilia. Homosexuals are sick, abnormal abominations and should be vanquished from the face of earth.

Yeah I agree and all those with that other horrible illness the common cold!

Muhammed was quite the homophobe. Allah is not.

Allah created them and everything Allah creates is perfect.

This makes about as much sense as a Christian who condemns Christ but not God.

You are not a Muslim; you think you are. You're a theist, but you're not a Muslim.

This makes about as much sense as a Christian who condemns Christ but not God.

You are not a Muslim; you think you are. You're a theist, but you're not a Muslim.

I thought he left Islam like a year ago? :confused:

This makes about as much sense as a Christian who condemns Christ but not God.

Not exactly. More like a Christian who does not see the words of Paul as absolute truth, but does see them as inspired.

You are not a Muslim; you think you are. You're a theist, but you're not a Muslim.

Unless you are Allah, I don't think you really have the authority to make that call.

Sexuality is a choice.

Yeah, in the same way being left handed is.

"I'm happier and enjoy writing with my left hand more."
"NO!" *smashes hand with a bamboo rod* "You will write like all the others because that is the correct way!"
"This is very uncomfortable and unnatural for me."
"Deal with it."

As soon as someone shows me where, or why, Homosexuality is a problem, I'll support treatment for the 'condition'.

Yeah, in the same way being left handed is.

"I'm happier and enjoy writing with my left hand more."
"NO!" *smashes hand with a bamboo rod* "You will write like all the others because that is the correct way!"
"This is very uncomfortable and unnatural for me."
"Deal with it."

As soon as someone shows me where, or why, Homosexuality is a problem, I'll support treatment for the 'condition'.

An unfit argument. I was right handed, but recently I have willfully altered my preference and it feels fine.

An unfit argument. I was right handed, but recently I have willfully altered my preference and it feels fine.

Is there supposed to be a problem with becoming left handed?

Not exactly. More like a Christian who does not see the words of Paul as absolute truth, but does see them as inspired.



Unless you are Allah, I don't think you really have the authority to make that call.

Allah is merely an alternate designation for God. People interpret the creator in various ways. Those various ways make-up religions. You are defined as a member of a religion if you agree with the founder's interpretation of God. If you don't agree with the founder then you are a theist, but not of that religion. Buddhists agree with Buddha, it defines them as that category of theist.

They can be a member officially, but they aren't at heart any more then a someone who is anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, pro-war, anti-welfare, and anti-immigration a Liberal despite what they say.

Is there supposed to be a problem with becoming left handed?

No. I enjoy it very much. I don't think sexuality is a choice. I'm just saying comparing with hand preference is a bad metaphor.

No. I enjoy it very much. I don't think sexuality is a choice. I'm just saying comparing with hand preference is a bad metaphor.

*shrug*

Whenever I try to write with my left hand it's like trying to chisel with a pencil. From there I drew the analogy because of the latter words.

Allah is merely an alternate designation for God.

Indeed.

People interpret the creator in various ways.

Indeed. Even people of the same religion will interpret the creator in various ways.

Those various ways make-up religions. You are defined as a member of a religion if you agree with the founder's interpretation of God.

Not really. Sociologically, you are a member of a religion if you self-identify as a member of that religion. There's really no other way to measure it. Just as people interpret the creator in different ways, people interpret religious texts and religious leaders in different ways. Someone may see a religious leader as a prophet - as someone who started their religion, but not feel that said religious leader was right about absolutely everything. Some may see a prophet as infallible in his teachings.

A person does not cease being a Catholic because they don't personally agree with something the pope said. A person is not suddenly non-Christian if they don't agree with something Paul said, despite it being in the Bible. And person is not automatically non-Muslim if they don't agree with Muhammad on everything.

You won't find any two people who have actually thought about their religion and still hold the exact same religious views. If that is the requirement, then every religious person in the world is "just a theist" and none belong to any group religion.

Sexuality is a choice.

You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

Just because you don't have sex doesn't mean you don't have a sexual orientation. If you are attracted only to the opposite sex, then you're straight, and if you are attracted only to the same sex, then you're gay, whether you have actual sexual intercourse or not.

Illogical approach, and one that has an evolutionary purpose. It eliminates your genes.

First off, the world is overpopulated because the wrong people are reproducing. Those who are most irresponsible are having the most children, and it's not only in the Third World.

It's quite logical, in that humans are a social animal. It's not the individual genes but that of the person's society (tribe - we evolved in SMALL groups, not cities or nations). The survival of the tribe is what's important. If it's genetic to have a numbe of non-reproductive people, they are not the one's "choosing" these genes; they're being selected by their extended family, and for that extended family.

Put another way, it's in your best interest to produce as many offspring for the next several generations as possible. If having some offspring that are non-reproductive helps the survival rate of your great grandchildren, it's worth it.

The wrong people reproducing. Yes, it's true. In the developed countries, the number of children an average woman is expected to have is inversly related to the number of years of her education. The highly educated are likely to be the most intelligent, are likely to be able to afford to rear their families properly, and also know how to prevent it. The moderately educated are middling minds, but also know how to prevent it, but are more likely to want to "be like their parents" and have the same number of kids, houses, dogs, cars... The uneducated are most likely to be impoverished. They are more likely to unquestioningly accept various religious ideas that procreation is the purpose to life, and, amazingly, have no idea how to stop it! Then, there's the thing about government transfer payments. It's an economic fact that whatever you subsidize you get more of. If you take money from the "haves" and give it through various programs to the poor with kids, based on how many kids, you'll get more poor people having kids. Ethically... it's nothing shy of theft to have kids and take money from others, not willingly given for that specific purpose, in order to raise them. There's no moral difference between stealing the money directly and having a government force the money from others and to give it to you. Of course, there are unforseen things that happen to people who rightly expect to be able to afford their family when they have it, and they end up unable to afford to live - for awhile, or even forever in case of disability or death. That's the "insurance" angle on it

In undeveloped countries, they may not have access to effective birth control, PLUS, the historic way one handled crises where lots of people were dying was to have lots of babies, to keep the societal numbers up. Today though, when the problem is lack of food and lack of clean water, the reverse is true.

A person does not cease being a Catholic because they don't personally agree with something the pope said.

Then they are then effectively Protestant.

A person is not suddenly non-Christian if they don't agree with something Paul said, despite it being in the Bible. And person is not automatically non-Muslim if they don't agree with Muhammad on everything.

Mohamed is the equivalent to Jesus with the Muslims, not Paul.

You won't find any two people who have actually thought about their religion and still hold the exact same religious views. If that is the requirement, then every religious person in the world is "just a theist" and none belong to any group religion.

People who are of the same religion and disagree are of different sects. Both Catholics and Protestants accept Jesus as their savior, but they disagree on many points. If you stop accepting Jesus, you are neither.

Mohamed is the equivalent to Jesus with the Muslims

Actually no, not even close. Paul is a somewhat proper analogy as it was someone who received messages from god, albeit, god in a human form. Perhaps the closest analogy to Mohamed, as in a moral who heard divinity from "up high" would be Moses.

Two things:

A gay friend of mine yesterday told me that being gay is neither a choice nor is it genetic--you catch it from kissing gay people. He refers to it as "gay mono."

That said, I'm inclined to agree with Heinlein's proposal that there is no homosexuality nor heterosexuality nor bisexuality nor variations thereof, but simply sexuality. What you are most attracted to is a matter of preference with influences from the environment, your upbringing, common biological urges, and your own un/willingness to consider things attractive, sexually.

Then they are then effectively Protestant.



Mohamed is the equivalent to Jesus with the Muslims, not Paul.

No he isn't. Christians believe that Jesus was a divine being. God Incarnate. Muslims believe that Mohamed was a prophet. Just a man who had the ability to hear God's word. There is no analogue of Jesus in modern religions. He was based on Dionysus. Part god, part man. Shared his blessing via wine. Died and brought back to life by God.

Mohamed's closest analogue is the first pope.

Then they are then effectively Protestant.

Guess just about every Catholic out there "effectively Protestant" then. Even a lot of bishops and the like!

Mohamed is the equivalent to Jesus with the Muslims, not Paul.

No, he isn't, at least not in most versions of Christianity. Jesus is seen as being divine - as being part of the Trinity - as being God. Muhammad is not revered as actually being Allah, but as a prophet - as one who speaks for Allah. As such, while there are differences, the comparison is better using Paul - the apostle who directed the beginnings of a large portion of the Christian faith.

Alternatively, we could compare it to a Jewish person disagreeing with any of the Jewish prophets on something. Or a Mormon person disagreeing with John Smith on something.

People who are of the same religion and disagree are of different sects.

Then every individual is their own sect, because you won't find two people who completely agree on religion. You could go to a single church congregation and poll them on a number of religious issues, and you'd find a large number of differing answers. You can ask 100 Catholic priests 100 questions on religion and you'd get differing answers. You could do the same with 100 ordained ministers of any religion.

The kind of hivemind you seem to require for a religion simply doesn't exist. People join churches, denominations, faiths, etc. because their beliefs most closely align with those groups, not because they agree with every single thing that is said.

damn gravedig making me think Neo-Anarchists was back :(

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

you mean Asexual?

sorry to disappoint you, but you can't control instincts. either you have them, or you don't, but you can't tell your brain not to dislike certain people sexually. attraction rules over conscience a lot of times

thats why there is Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Asexuals, and even people who prefer certain ages (too young, too old) over others or even are pleased with animal farm sex or just fetishes involving socks and what not

and your kind of sexuality is only set by attraction standards your instinct makes through the unconscious mind. you may not want to have sex with that guy/girl, but your brain will make you feel aroused nevertheless

Very well, all conceded. But what defines you as a Muslim then? Simply rooting for the "team"? Fondness of Muslim ceremony? Declaring official allegiance with that "club"? What?

Very well, all conceded. But what defines you as a Muslim then? Simply rooting for the "team"? Fondness of Muslim ceremony? Declaring official allegiance with that "club"? What?

As a general rule, I would say that self-identification is really the only measure of religious affiliation. From a personal standpoint, if I were trying to define someone else's views, I'd pick the religion their views seemed most similar too - the religion they agreed with the most. But I'd only try to do that if they didn't self-identify.

I also request scientific proof. While choosing to pursue attractions or not may be a choice. Which gender you want is not a choice.

No, just no
Ask any gay person, its not a choice at all, why would anyone chose to be gay?
Your obviously stupid, offense intended

For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.
Wow. You fail. Hard.

Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's not titillating at all....and I went out of my way to get some Kleenex. Funny thing is, no one seems to realize that saying homosexuality is NOT a choice gives ammunition to those who would like to call is a 'disease.'

At least with those who say it's both a "choice" and a disease, we can call them on their blatant fallacy.

Around 50% of sexuality is a predisposition caused by genetics, the rest is un-provable, twin studies show a concordance of homosexuality in identical twins higher than that of left handedness (note that nobody disputes the validity of left handedness as a genetically decided factor), and higher than that of abnormal agression, also believed to be not much less than 50% down to a disposition, to say that sexuality is a choice is ignorant, to say that sexuality is any one thing is ignorant, for the moment science has explained all it can on sexuality, the genetic side, it's non-acceptance by some members of the scientific community is purely political, the 50% that is probably attributed to psychology is complex and will require a psychologist with a stomach for tedious experiments to examine.

It's like a semi choice, it can be changed like any fetish, but with great difficulty. Although I imagine some people find it easier than others.

I'm pretty sure I've changed fetish, especially as I've matured. A common example is, immature hetero men are supposed to be attracted to breasts (motherly thing), whereas more mature men go for legs, or so I've heard. A google search will probably reveal other examples. This may not be as big a difference as straight to gay, but lots of little steps could take you there.

To say you can decide to be gay or not, or it's hard wired into your very being, is a little extreme I think. Plus both freud and jung implied it can change quite rapidly at times, and I think their opinions count for something.

Have you ever tried switching sexualities?

It is not a choice...

Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.

Yeah, right, so in other words you can't get a woman to sleep with you, and to get back at all of them, your 'asexual'. (or guys if your a girl)

Whatever

In the end, you don't have to be having sex to be homosexual, or heterosexual. These are defined by your desire to have sex with someone of the same and/or opposite sex.

So it doesn't matter if you don't choose to sleep with men if your a guy, if you desire to sleep with other men your still gay.

And yes, your sexuality is decided from the day your born onward.

I think your confusing sexual identities with sexual actions. Sexual actions are a choice... sexual identity, not so much. That's like saying you can choose whether you like to eat vegetables or not... sure, you choose the act of eating them, but you can't always control your preference for or against them.

~Merric

Mohamed is the equivalent to Jesus with the Muslims, not Paul.


Did you (ever) do any research on the matter?

You realise Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet, yes? And - you realise that Mohammed is not the 'son of god', yes?

Yeah, right, so in other words you can't get a woman to sleep with you, and to get back at all of them, your 'asexual'. (or guys if your a girl)

Whatever

In the end, you don't have to be having sex to be homosexual, or heterosexual. These are defined by your desire to have sex with someone of the same and/or opposite sex.

So it doesn't matter if you don't choose to sleep with men if your a guy, if you desire to sleep with other men your still gay.

And yes, your sexuality is decided from the day your born onward.

So - what if your sexuality is to be attracted to nobody?

i really don't care whether it is biology or lifestyle. what i care is that it is being used as an excuse by a dominant self ritiousness to harras an otherwise innocent minority.

=^^=
.../\...

Or by a vociferous but well-meaning minority to harass otherwise innocents of the majority. Why is it discrimination if I bash the minority, but political correctness if I bash the majority?

So - what if your sexuality is to be attracted to nobody?

Really, I'm not the person to ask. I haven't actually heard of a honest to god Asexual human being, nor have I actually read anything on them.

I think most people who say they aren't sexually attracted to anyone just have a very low libido, and find it hard to be aroused by others.

Armandian Cheese's statement is completely untrue... I fought my own homosexuality for years, to the point I was suicidal because my religion said it was evil. I even tried sex with several different women of different types, and could not get aroused and got NO enjoyment out of it.
While one can choose whether or not to act on thier sexuality, their attractions are uncontrolable!!


QUOTE=Armandian Cheese;8697732]Let me be blunt: all of you who whine about homosexuality not being a choice are flat out wrong. And so are the heterosexuals. Why? Allow me to make a statement that will shock you, titillate you, and challenge everything you have ever believed...

Sexuality is a choice.

That's right, you can read it again. Go ahead. I'll wait. Done? Good.

The fact is, unlike what the media will constantly try to tell you, with the incessant cries of "Do it!" and constant flood of sexual propaganda, you don't have to have sex.\ Humanity has free will. You may have sexual impulses, but the fact is, if you still have a fully functioning brain, you can decide to have sex or not have sex. What's more, you can decide who you can have it with. You can go "do" a guy, a girl, even a freakin' beaver if you so desire.

Now, some of you may argue that you are not attracted to a certain sex. But the fact is, it's only perception, and perceptions can be controlled. For example, I have trained myself to ne utterly anti-sexual.

So in short, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexuality in general is a choice.[/QUOTE]

Gay people are mentally insane.... its a birth defect, a form of retardation and it shows.

Gay people are mentally insane.... its a birth defect, a form of retardation and it shows.

*sigh* care to back that up with something?

I don't know, some sort of fact? No?

Then go away, please?;)

Or by a vociferous but well-meaning minority to harass otherwise innocents of the majority. Why is it discrimination if I bash the minority, but political correctness if I bash the majority?

How, pray tell, is the minority here "harass[ing]" the majority?

Are they denying them rights?

Are they discriminating against them?

Are they regularly committing hate crimes?

Go buy a clue.

Gay people are mentally insane.... its a birth defect, a form of retardation and it shows.

Ah, do you mean like ALL of the artists, poets, writers, and musicians throughout history who have been gay? I do not think that any studies have shown that "retardation" and sexual orientation are at all related.

Insane? That's a legal term. There is plenty of evidence that no significant percentage of gays are insane as opposed to heterosexuals who have been declared non compis mentis (Not mentally competent) by a court.

Gay people are mentally insane.... its a birth defect, a form of retardation and it shows.

Ah look kids it's a *bigot*

trying justify irrational hatred with false science (or the illusion thereof)

Really, I'm not the person to ask. I haven't actually heard of a honest to god Asexual human being, nor have I actually read anything on them.

I think most people who say they aren't sexually attracted to anyone just have a very low libido, and find it hard to be aroused by others.

I'm asexual. I also don't have any sort of sex drive, but there are some asexuals who do have sex drives but still aren't attracted to anyone.

but political correctness if I bash the majority?

Because we hate you. Hate, hate, hate.

We loathe you so much, we're plotting against you, so we can take over this country and oppress all of you. If you don't try your hardest to stop gays from getting married, you'll be crushed mercilessly beneath our iron fist.

I haven't actually heard of a honest to god Asexual human being

Well, you clearly aren't willing to trust what they say... so how would you know?